BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Hillsborough

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, entitled ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’—A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated, dated 1 November 2017.—(Guto Bebb.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Swansea Main Line: Electrification

Laura Smith: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the Welsh economy of the Government’s decision not to electrify the main line to Swansea.

Liz Twist: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the Welsh economy of the Government’s decision not to electrify the main line to Swansea.

Alex Norris: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the Welsh economy of the Government’s decision not to electrify the main line to Swansea.

Alun Cairns: Before I respond to questions, I would like to convey the thoughts and prayers of the whole House to the families and community in Llangammarch Wells following the tragic fire earlier this week.
The Government are delivering the biggest rail investment programme for more than a century. The Great Western modernisation programme includes £5.7 billion of investment in new trains. It will cut journey times from south Wales to London by 15 minutes, which will make south Wales more attractive to investors, and bring significant benefits to our economy and passengers alike.

Laura Smith: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments? I offer my deepest condolences.
The Government’s decision not to go ahead with electrifying the main line to Swansea has been a bitter blow to south Wales. My constituency is less than 20 miles from north Wales, and many of my constituents have written to ask me what steps the Government are taking to electrify the north Wales coast line. Can the Secretary of State provide any clarification today?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady will be well aware that advances in bimodal technology mean that electrification between Cardiff and Swansea would not save passengers any significant journey time. She makes an interesting point about north Wales, and I hope that she is aware of the £43 million of signalling improvement that has taken place in north Wales to improve speed and reliability along the line. In addition, the Crewe hub offers great potential for bringing the benefits of HS2, a major UK rail investment programme, to north Wales as well as to the north of England.

Liz Twist: What will the Secretary of State be doing to create a more competitive and cost-effective environment for rail infrastructure in Wales?

Alun Cairns: A major multibillion investment programme is benefiting rail passengers in Wales. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee asked us to reassess the electrification programme on a stage-by-stage basis, and that was what we did. We are therefore using the latest advances in modern technology to ensure that passengers in Swansea and west Wales get the benefits of the most modern trains on the network immediately, rather than perhaps waiting for the traditional technology of electric-only trains.

Alex Norris: On 16 May, the Transport Secretary said that electrification was definitely happening and that he wanted to see an end to “smelly diesel trains”, so there was widespread disappointment on 20 July when electrification was cancelled between Cardiff and Swansea, and also for the midland main line, with Ministers citing the fact that new technology made electrification unnecessary. Can the Secretary of State satisfy the House that this is not another cynical broken election promise by outlining what technological breakthrough was made after the ballot boxes closed?

Alun Cairns: One of the strong advocates for electrification was Professor Mark Barry, but he said that the bimodal fleet neutralised the case. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about diesel trains because these bimodal trains will use the latest and most environmentally friendly diesel generators. The latest trains can even exceed the maximum speed that could be achieved between Cardiff and Swansea. Of course they will stick to the maximum speed along that route, but that demonstrates their flexibility.

Antoinette Sandbach: The benefits of the Crewe hub station rely on a business case of five trains an hour to deliver improvements to not only to my constituents in Eddisbury, but north Wales. What is the Secretary of State doing to support that case?

Alun Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I meet regularly to discuss the whole range of rail infrastructure programmes in Wales. The integrated way in which the network works via the Crewe hub offers potential not only to my hon. Friend’s constituency, but to north Wales, because bringing the benefits of high-speed rail to Crewe will benefit north Wales as well.

Kevin Foster: I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee when it came up with its cross-party recommendations in February, so I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State cite them. Does he agree  that any future electrification needs to be based on a robust assessment? It is worth bearing in mind that the bimodal trains that he proposes for Swansea are exactly what most other parts of the Great Western network, including Plymouth and Torbay, will be getting anyway.

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend makes a logical, reasonable and helpful point in recognising that by using the latest technology we are offering more capacity and much faster trains, which is a major benefit to Swansea and to west Wales. Criticising the decision to use the latest technology on the line to Swansea does nothing more than undermine investment in the city.

Geraint Davies: Rail electrification from London to Cardiff will save 15 minutes of journey time, but the new Swansea metro proposal would save half an hour between Cardiff and Swansea. What is more, the city deal will create 10,000 jobs and more passenger demand. Will the Secretary of State look again at the business case for an electrified metro between Swansea and Cardiff that will provide an environmentally friendly and stronger future, and offset the negative impacts of HS2 on investment in south Wales?

Alun Cairns: Clearly the Swansea metro is a different proposal, but I am keen to meet Professor Mark Barry to discuss its potential. It is an interesting addition to a wide-ranging debate in which there are also proposals to improve the frequency of trains to Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. At the moment, passengers from west Wales often drive to Port Talbot to get on the train, but I think that we can come up with much more imaginative solutions. The metro is an additional solution to consider as part of that debate.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State will be aware that in addition to deep concerns about the failure to electrify beyond Cardiff, there is a worry that Great Western Railway will apparently not offer a bilingual service on main line trains operating into Wales. Has he had a discussion with GWR about that? Other rail companies, such as Arriva, have been offering a bilingual service even on trains that go between Wales and England.

Alun Cairns: I have noted the public statements that have been made by the Welsh Government and the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I suggest that he raises the matter with First Great Western. Arriva is also making a change. Clearly this is a matter for the operators, but I think that the proposal is positive.

Jessica Morden: I associate myself and the Opposition with the condolences paid by the Secretary of State to those affected by the fire—our thoughts are with them.
Does the Secretary of State for Wales agree with Andrew R. T. Davies, the leader of the Welsh Conservative party, who said this week that electrification of the line to Swansea would be beneficial to Wales and should still take place? He said that he had not
“given up the ghost of fighting that campaign”,
and I assure the Secretary of State that neither have Labour Members.

Alun Cairns: I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that we are using the latest technology so that we have more capacity and faster trains going to Swansea. She needs to consider the fact that the original plans involved 15-minute savings between Swansea and Paddington, but the bimodal trains will still bring about 15-minute savings. We are bringing in the most modern technology and the most modern bimodal trains on the network now, rather than waiting another couple of years and causing Swansea additional disruption.

Jonathan Edwards: With reports that HS2 will cost more than £100 billion, alongside £15 billion for HS3 and another £30 billion for Crossrail 2, it is an absolute scandal that the British Government have broken their promise to electrify the main line to Swansea, despite the fact that that would cost only £400 million. Given the priorities of the British Government, is it not the case that the only way to ensure that Wales gets its fair share of rail investment is to devolve full responsibility for rail infrastructure?

Alun Cairns: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s tone because the bimodal trains will improve connectivity to his constituency and west Wales. His constituents would not have benefited from the previous proposal for electric-only trains to Swansea. Of course, the network in Wales is part of the UK network, and when he compares spending, he needs to think logically. For example, he has been supportive of the Halton curve, which is in England but will bring major benefits to the network between north Wales and Liverpool.

Heathrow Expansion

Paul Masterton: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential benefits for Wales of the proposed expansion of Heathrow airport.

Guto Bebb: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of different UK investment projects, including the proposed expansion of Heathrow airport. Estimates suggest that Heathrow’s proposed expansion would require 370,000 tonnes of UK steel, securing 700 British steel jobs, which would be welcome news for communities such as Port Talbot.

Paul Masterton: In addition to the benefits to Wales from construction related to the expansion of Heathrow, does my hon. Friend agree that there are opportunities for Welsh industry to support the ongoing operation of Heathrow when the expansion is complete, as many of my constituents in East Ren do for nearby Glasgow airport?

Guto Bebb: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The development of Heathrow offers significant opportunities for Wales and for the supply chain in Wales. That is why the Wales Office, working with the Welsh Government, have been involved in ensuring that we have roundtable discussions and “meet the buyer” events with Heathrow in Wales—south Wales and north Wales—so that Welsh companies will be in a position to benefit from investment in Heathrow.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Hub airports are more important than ever, so will the Minister join me in congratulating the Welsh Government on purchasing Cardiff airport, which has led to a great increase in passenger numbers? Should not the Tory party back that as well?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The Wales Office is very proud of its involvement in the Qatar decision to have direct flights from Cardiff airport. The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of hub airports, and a recent meeting I had with Heathrow highlighted the possibility of direct flights from Liverpool to Heathrow, which would be a significant advantage for businesses in north Wales.

Colin Clark: I am delighted that my hon. Friend agrees about the importance of hub airports to the regions. Will he keep up pressure on his colleagues to give slots to the distant regions in the north and in Wales?

Guto Bebb: Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. The importance of hub airports is understood by businesses across the United Kingdom. It is therefore imperative to have regular flights into Heathrow, which is one of the reasons why we need the expansion of Heathrow. That expansion will be good not only for the United Kingdom, but for regional economies, as connectivity into a major hub airport such as Heathrow will be beneficial to our local economies.

David Hanson: Trade unions, the CBI and local authorities all support the potential £6.2 billion of investment that Heathrow expansion will bring, but that depends on two things: the extension of HS2 to the Crewe hub; and a final decision on Heathrow. When are they both going to happen?

Guto Bebb: The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I hope that the decision on Heathrow will be forthcoming very soon. I agree entirely with him about the Crewe hub. A development in Crewe that links HS2 services into the north Wales main line represents a real opportunity for north Wales. We in the Wales Office have been involved in that with our colleagues in the Department for Transport.

Infrastructure Investment

Emma Hardy: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on infrastructure investment in Wales.

Gerald Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on infrastructure investment in Wales.

Guto Bebb: I hold regular discussions with Government Departments and the Welsh Government about infrastructure investment in Wales. We have invested £212 million in the new HMP Berwyn and committed more than £600 million to city deals in Cardiff and Swansea. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in Swansea  to announce our £800,000 investment in important innovative infrastructure—the UK’s first energy-positive office, which is capable of generating more energy than it uses.

Emma Hardy: Lasting economic success will come only from a long-term approach to major economic decisions, which is why it is so great that the Welsh Labour Government are supporting strategic investment in infrastructure. A Labour Government will ensure that they work with rather than against the devolved Governments. Is that the same for the Conservatives and, if so, will the Minister assure the House that Wales will get its full Barnett consequentials funding from HS2?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, but I regret to say that it probably shows that she does not really understand the relationship between the Wales Office and the Welsh Government. It is fair to say that infrastructure investment in Wales does depend on a partnership approach, which is why the growth deals secured for Swansea and Cardiff have been crucial examples of co-operation, and why I am working so closely with the Economy Minister to develop a north Wales growth deal.

Gerald Jones: Like many constituencies across Wales, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has seen huge benefits from European structural funds, but there is great uncertainty about the future. Will the Minister assure the House that the level of financial benefits that we currently enjoy from structural funds will be replicated when we leave the European Union?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about structural funds, but the reality is that structural funds in Wales did not make the difference that we anticipated. This Government are committed to a shared prosperity fund for the entire United Kingdom. Communities such as Merthyr Tydfil want good long-term jobs—the type of jobs I saw when I visited General Dynamics, which is recruiting apprentices and creating quality jobs in Merthyr Tydfil. That is exactly what the south Wales economy needs.

David Davies: The excellent History of Parliament website yesterday tweeted a link to a 1606 Bill to build a new bridge at Chepstow. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that those involved did not add an amendment calling for a M4 relief road, because by now the Welsh Assembly Government might have got their act together and actually built one?

Guto Bebb: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. It is indeed disappointing that we are still waiting for a relief road for Newport. I understand that the Welsh Government are going for another consultation, but it is imperative for the sake of the economy of south Wales and the south Wales valleys that we see action on a relief road for Newport sooner rather than later.

Ian Lucas: I was pleased that the Minister mentioned the north Wales growth bid. It is now 10 years since the step change in services between Chester and Shrewsbury that was caused by the introduction of an hourly service. Does he agree with everyone else in north Wales that it is high time that that step change was repeated through the reintroduction of the north Wales growth bid and better transport services across the border?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman is a key supporter of better transport links in north Wales, and his work on Growth Track 360 is appreciated by the Department. The north Wales growth deal is a key priority for the Wales Office. Cross-border connectivity is crucial to that growth deal, and I agree that we need to improve transport links, whether road or rail, as part of the development of the north Wales growth deal.

Chris Ruane: I would like to add my condolences, and those of Labour Members, to all those affected by the heartbreaking tragedy at Llangammarch.
Wales is one of many areas in Europe that have received EU structural funds to help to improve their infrastructure. After 2020, will Wales receive the same funding as those comparator regions of Europe or will there be a reduction in funding to Wales by this Conservative Government?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of EU structural funds as if they were a success story in the Welsh context. They were actually a failure: £4 billion of investment, yet our comparative economic performance fell. This Government are committed to the UK shared prosperity fund, which will work for the benefit of the Welsh economy, rather than being wasted in the way in which the Welsh Government wasted our structural funds over the past 18 years.

Chris Ruane: I am afraid that the Minister did not answer my question, so I will come back to it. There is a lack of clarity about what will happen in Wales after 2020. I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me to discuss these issues, but will he and the Minister convene a meeting of the Wales team, the shadow Wales team and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sort these issues out so that there is absolute clarity for the people of Wales?

Guto Bebb: The offer of a meeting is something I would always be happy to accept, but it has to be at the right time. In the context of structural funding, the key thing is that, for example, a strategic approach across north Wales was not possible because four counties were receiving European structural funds and two were not. We now have an opportunity for a strategic approach across north Wales, which will be supported by a UK shared prosperity fund in due course.

Leaving the EU: Inward Investment

Chris Evans: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on inward investment in Wales.

Alun Cairns: Wales remains a great place to invest. As we leave the EU, we will continue to support existing investment relationships and work to attract new projects. I am working closely with the Department for International Trade to deliver this.

Chris Evans: The Secretary of State will know that the Welsh Labour Government have been very successful in attracting businesses such as TVR, Aston Martin and General Dynamics. All that foreign investment  could be at risk if there is a no-deal Brexit. What is he specifically doing to reassure the business community that Wales is still open for business?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Wales is a great place to invest. Last year, 85 foreign direct investment projects came to Wales, 95% of which were supported and facilitated by the Department for International Trade. I have been to Qatar and Japan to talk to investors, and I am encouraged by their optimism and the flexibility that the Welsh economy can bring.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I will happily take the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) on this Question.

Ranil Jayawardena: Will the Secretary of State reassure us that the two important markets that he visited recently—Japan and Qatar—are committed to their current international business links with Wales? What plans do they have to expand that involvement?

Alun Cairns: As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), I am encouraged by their interest and commitment. Japanese companies, by tradition, make long-term investments. The first was in Bridgend—Sony was one of the first—in 1973, and they have similarly committed that they want to remain with us for the long term to come. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There are very many private conversations taking place, but I think it is fair to the Secretary of State if we are able to enjoy the product of his lucubrations. He spent a lot of time preparing for this session; it seems a very great sadness if his observations cannot be properly heard. Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr. A report earlier this year found that foreign direct investment to Wales declined by 44% during the EU referendum year, with what are described as “geographically peripheral” regions lagging even further behind. What will it take for the Secretary of State to admit that the only way to protect jobs and wages is to maintain economic links with the EU by staying in the single market and customs union permanently?

Alun Cairns: As I mentioned, last year was another successful year: 85 projects came to Wales, creating 2,500 new jobs. I would also point to the latest export data: exports to the EU were increased by 15%, but exports outside the European Union increased by 20%. That demonstrates the great flexibility of businesses in Wales, keen to explore the new opportunities that exiting the European Union brings.

Liz Saville-Roberts: For a meaningful vote on the final deal to be exactly that—meaningful—we must not allow Parliament to be threatened with the prospect of condemning the UK to a no-deal scenario, should that final deal prove unsatisfactory. Would it not be more prudently conservative and economically wise of the Government to explore any legal flexibilities surrounding article 50, to appease businesses across Wales and avoid a damaging cliff edge?

Alun Cairns: I hope the hon. Lady will take great reassurance from the fact that we are doing everything we can to get a good deal for the whole United Kingdom as we leave the European Union. Of course, it is also prudent—that is the word that she used—to prepare for all outcomes, and we have to prepare for every potential eventuality because we need to preserve the integrity of the UK market, a relationship with Europe and the new opportunities, as we leave the EU, with markets around the world.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Secretary of State encourage the Department for International Trade to give a high priority to Wales as part of the Government’s efforts to bring prosperity to every corner of the kingdom?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. I think the Department for International Trade is already doing that, but there is always more that we can do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade and I met the First Minister on Friday to consider the trade White Paper, as well as the new opportunities, and the establishment of the UK Board of Trade, which includes strong representation from Wales, is an important part of that work.

Leaving the EU

Chris Davies: What recent discussions he has had with Welsh business groups, universities and the Farmers Union of Wales on the effect of the UK leaving the EU.

Guto Bebb: Since the referendum, the Secretary of State and I have discussed the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union in meetings with stakeholders across Wales. We have met businesses, universities and farming unions, amongst others, and the next meeting, the Secretary of State’s expert panel on EU exit, will take place on Monday.

Chris Davies: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to go even further as negotiations with the EU continue? Will he encourage other Cabinet Ministers to come to Wales to hear the views of Welsh business, Welsh farmers and Welsh universities first hand?

Guto Bebb: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a champion for the agricultural industry, which is no surprise in view of the constituency he represents. I can assure him that the discussions with the farming unions will intensify, and I am very pleased to announce that the Secretary of State for International Trade will be in Wales this week.

Albert Owen: rose—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman discovers anew his popularity on a daily basis.

Albert Owen: I am very pleased that the Prime Minister is here to listen to my question, because on a number of occasions I have asked her about the importance of the port of Holyhead in my constituency to Irish trade. Last week, a company from Ireland suggested a new route to Holland and Belgium, circumnavigating Britain.  Stakeholders in my constituency are concerned about that. The Irish Government are concerned about that; so are the Welsh Government. When will the UK Government wake up?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the port of Holyhead and the concern is shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who visited the port with him. These concerns have been heard in the Wales Office; we have met stakeholders and Irish businesses. I can assure him that our intention is to ensure a frictionless border in Holyhead, in the same way as in Ireland.

Ben Lake: EU students contribute upwards of £130 million to the Welsh economy, and thousands of academic staff from across Europe have been vital to the success of Welsh institutions. Given that we already know of an 8% decline in applications from EU students to Welsh universities, what discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that visa arrangements do not further harm our higher education sector?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the universities sector in Wales. I recently visited Bangor University and Aberystwyth University and discussed these matters. I can assure him that the Wales Office is in constant discussions with other Departments on the issues raised by the sector, including EU visas.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the fact that the UK and devolved Administrations have agreed the principles on which the common frameworks will be constructed, which will be of particular interest to business groups, universities and the National Farmers Union of Wales. I encourage the Minister to continue these exchanges with the devolved Administrations, so that we can reach agreement on how the common frameworks should be established.

John Bercow: There is no obligation for the Minister’s reply to exceed a sentence.

Guto Bebb: I agree with my right hon. Friend on how important it is to continue having deep engagements with farming unions and the universities sector in Wales.

Leaving the EU: Balance of Powers

Martyn Day: If he will hold discussions with the National Assembly of Wales on the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the balance of powers held between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

Patrick Grady: If he will hold discussions with the National Assembly of Wales on the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the balance of powers held between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

Alun Cairns: I hold regular discussions with the First Minister and Assembly Members, as well as with local authorities, industry representatives and third sector organisations, on matters relating to the UK leaving the EU.

Martyn Day: Following the last Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations meeting of Welsh, Scottish and UK Governments, an agreed set of principles on areas where EU law currently intersects with that of devolved competence was published. Will the Secretary of State please update the House on what tangible actions the UK Government have taken to institute those principles?

Alun Cairns: There are 64 areas of law that intersect with the Welsh Government, and I think that there are 111 that relate to Scotland. There is an awful lot of technical work going on between officials in the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the UK Administration. There are many functions beneath that, but we are working positively to establish which of them can be devolved as quickly as possible when powers are returned from the European Union to the UK.

Patrick Grady: Will the right hon. Gentleman, like the Secretary of State for Scotland, promise the Welsh Assembly a powers bonanza following Brexit, and if so, unlike the Secretary of State for Scotland, can he name one power that will actually be devolved?

Alun Cairns: I have mentioned that officials are working on 64 areas, and we want to move forward so that the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments will be extended, but we also need to maintain the integrity of the UK market. We need to remember that everything we are doing needs to suit business, because we want business in Scotland to continue to export and work throughout the UK, but we also want business in Wales to have the opportunity perhaps to take some of the Scottish market.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Dennis Skinner: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 1 November.

Theresa May: I know that Members across the House will have been appalled by last night’s cowardly terrorist attack in New York. Our thoughts are with all those affected, and we stand united with the people of New York.
Members on both sides of the House have been deeply concerned about allegations of harassment and mistreatment here in Westminster. This demands a response, which is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been meeting with her counterparts, and we are hopeful that all sides can work together quickly to resolve this. I have written to all party leaders to invite them to a meeting early next week, so that we can discuss a common, transparent and independent grievance procedure for all those working in Parliament. We have a duty to ensure that everyone coming here to contribute to public life is treated with respect.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that some very powerful research has been done on the question of High Speed 2? It shows that for the first 140 miles, in the leafy suburbs of the south, nearly 30% of the line  will be in tunnels to avoid knocking down houses, yet now we are told that the figure is only 2% for the whole of the north. Why? It is because HS2 says, “It is too costly; knock the houses down.” Will she arrange for a meeting with people from my area, to avoid another 30 houses being knocked down in Newton, which is part of Bolsover? Is it not high time that this Government stopped treating our people like second-class citizens?

Theresa May: I am sure that the Department for Transport will be happy to look into the question the hon. Gentleman has raised, but of course the reason why we are doing HS2 is that it is important to increase the capacity of the railway lines going through to the north. This will be a very important contribution to the United Kingdom economy, and I assure him that if he looks at everything this Government have done, with the northern powerhouse, the midlands engine and the significant investment in infrastructure across all parts of the country, he will see that this is a Government who want to ensure that this is a country that works for everyone.

Nusrat Ghani: I join the Prime Minister in adding that my thoughts, along with Wealden’s, are with New Yorkers. The shocking scenes in New York will have brought back awful memories of terrorist attacks here, and, as we degrade and destroy Daesh at its base, it will export its death cult ideology. Will my right hon. Friend urge our international partners to join with us in delivering the recent United Nations resolution to investigate and prosecute Daesh terrorists, so that we can hold them to account for their vile crimes?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and it is important that we ensure that we have a complete response to this issue of the threat of terrorism. That involves dealing with the problem at source, and it also involves dealing with terrorism wherever it occurs. But our message is very clear: our values will prevail and the terrorists will not win. However, as we do this, we need to ensure that, as my hon. Friend has said, we work with international partners. We want to develop safe spaces in Syria and Iraq as they re-emerge from this terrorist threat that has been on their streets, but that has also, obviously, affected us here and others elsewhere across the world. Crucially, we have done a lot of work in helping those in situ to gain evidence that can be used to ensure that anybody who is involved in the horrors of the attacks that we see can be properly brought to justice.

Jeremy Corbyn: I put on the record that I am happy to meet with the Prime Minister and all party leaders to discuss the sex harassment allegations that the right hon. Lady rightly referred to. We need better protections for all in this House, and the House must involve workplace trade unions in that, but it is also incumbent on all parties to have robust procedures in place to protect and support victims of sexual abuse and harassment.
I also join the Prime Minister in sending our solidarity to the people of New York and their mayor Bill de Blasio on yesterday’s appalling terrorist attack.
I hope the whole House will join me in paying tribute to two former Labour colleagues who, sadly, passed away this week: Candy Atherton, the former Member  for Falmouth and Camborne, and Frank Doran, former Member for Aberdeen North. Both did enormous good work, at opposite ends of the UK, to diligently represent their communities and constituencies. They will be sadly missed by us all, particularly in the Labour party, which they served so well for their entire lives.
In 2010, the Labour Government intervened through HMRC to shut down an Isle of Man scheme used to import yachts into the European Union and thus avoid tax. A similar scheme has recently been exposed relating to the import of business jets into the Isle of Man, so can the Prime Minister assure the House that the HMRC will investigate these new allegations diligently?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a number of points in his question, and I will address them all.
On the first point, the right hon. Gentleman is right that it is absolutely essential that political parties have processes to deal with allegations of misconduct. We also have the ministerial code, and proper investigations must take place against it where that is appropriate. But I believe that it is also crucial for everybody working in this Parliament—be they working for a Member of Parliament or the House authorities, or a journalist working in this Parliament—that there are proper processes in this Parliament for people to be able to report misconduct and for that to be dealt with. That is very important and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying he will meet with me, and I hope with other party leaders, to look at this issue; I see that the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), is nodding.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Frank Doran and Candy Atherton. Frank Doran was first elected in 1987 and served two separate terms as the MP for Aberdeen. He chaired the Administration Committee for five years and was a tireless campaigner for safety in the oil and gas industry. I am sure that everybody will recall the commitment with which he served in this House, and join me in offering condolences to his family and friends. Candy Atherton was first elected in 1997, when I was first elected. She served for eight years as a Member of Parliament and was a strong campaigner for women’s rights and disability issues. She continued to champion those causes on Cornwall Council after she had left this House. Once again, I am sure that Members across the House will join me in offering condolences to her family and friends.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about tax avoidance. I can assure him that, when cases are referred to HMRC in relation to tax avoidance, it takes them seriously and looks into them seriously. We have taken action collectively as a Government over the last few years since 2010 when we first came in, and we have secured almost £160 billion in additional compliance revenues since 2010 through a number of measures that we have taken to ensure that we clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance.

Jeremy Corbyn: There are 957 business jets in the Isle of Man, and that seems a bit excessive for any island, anywhere. I hope that that will be investigated and that due tax is collected from those people who are trying to avoid it. Estimates of the scale of tax dodging range from £34 billion, which is around the size of our schools budget, to £119 billion, which is the size of the NHS  budget. The Isle of Man VAT avoidance allegations are part of a wider leak from a Bermuda-based law firm said to be on a similar scale to the Panama papers. Will the Prime Minister commit HMRC to fully investigate all evidence of UK tax avoidance and evasion from this leak, and prosecute where feasible?

Theresa May: I have given the right hon. Gentleman an assurance in my first answer that HMRC does take these issues very seriously, does investigate and does take action, and that, where appropriate, tax loopholes are closed. What is important is to look at the record, and I have mentioned the additional £160 billion of compliance revenues since 2010. We have announced or implemented more than 75 measures since 2010 to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one that had been done by the Labour Government, and we have continued to act on this issue. We will be raising billions of pounds more as a result of that. I want to reassure him: I think most people would recognise that HMRC actually wants to collect tax. That is its job, and it looks to make sure that it can do so as much as possible.

Jeremy Corbyn: Well, it is rather strange then that Britain has reportedly blocked a French-led proposal that would have placed Bermuda on the European Union tax haven blacklist. Perhaps the Prime Minister could explain why that would be the case. The Panama papers exposed many wealthy individuals and big businesses who avoided tax through offshore trusts. Labour backs any necessary changes to toughen our laws against aggressive tax avoidance. Just yesterday, we tried to strengthen legislation on the beneficial ownership of trusts, through amendments that we tabled to the Finance Bill. Why did the Government vote against them?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the British overseas territories. In fact, this Government have taken action in relation those territories—action that was not taken by the previous Labour Government. If he is saying to me that the whole question of tax evasion needs constantly to be looked at and that the Government need to be prepared to act, my answer is, yes, we are and we will.

Jeremy Corbyn: There is a strange pattern here. In 2015 alone, Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted against five reports that would introduce methods of fighting tax avoidance and evasion, and HMRC admitted last week that multinational companies avoid paying £5.8 billion in taxes in 2016. Despite that, HMRC is currently cutting another 8,000 staff. So will the Prime Minister assure the House that, instead of more cuts, HMRC will get more resources in the upcoming Budget to tackle the scourge of aggressive tax avoidance and evasion?

Theresa May: I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman that HMRC is acting, has been acting since this Conservative party came into government in 2010, and will continue to act. In asking these questions, the right hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on why, before the dissolution of Parliament earlier this year, the Labour party refused to support anti-tax avoidance and evasion measures brought forward by this Government. His party stopped them.

Jeremy Corbyn: My question was about why Conservative MPs opposed what Labour was proposing yesterday. Last month’s European Parliament committee of inquiry, set up in the wake of the Panama papers scandal, claimed that the UK is obstructing the fight against tax dodging and money laundering. Just last week, the EU’s Competition Commissioner announced an inquiry into UK taxation rules that may have institutionalised tax avoidance by multinational corporations. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that vital revenue to fund schools and hospitals is being lost? Will she change the rules in the Budget?

Theresa May: We have taken an extra £160 billion in compliance revenue since 2010. He comments on measures that were proposed this week but, as I said in my previous answer, we would have had more anti-tax evasion measures in place if the Labour party had not blocked them before the last election. This party in government has not just been acting in the UK; we have been working with the Crown dependencies and with the British overseas territories, and we have been leading the world. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who put this on the agenda at the G7 and the G20 for international action against tax avoidance and evasion.

Jeremy Corbyn: If we are leading the world, perhaps the Prime Minister could explain how the amount of income tax paid by the super-rich has fallen from £4.4 billion to £3.5 billion since 2009. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee said that HMRC’s record of getting multi-millionaires to pay their taxes was “dismal” and that the super-rich were getting
“help with their tax affairs that is not available to other taxpayers.”
Our schools’ budgets are being cut, more people are waiting longer for treatment—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We tend to have large doses of this over-excitement every week, but I just give notice that, as usual, I would like to get to the end of the questions on the Order Paper and to facilitate Back-Bench inquiries as well. Members are eating only into their own time; I have all the time in the world.

Jeremy Corbyn: Since Conservative Members get so excited, I must say it again: our schools’ budgets are being cut, more people are waiting longer for treatment on the NHS, and more elderly and disabled people are not getting the social care they need. When it comes to paying taxes, does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable that there is one rule for the super-rich and another for the rest of us?

Theresa May: The top 1% of earners in this country are paying 28% of the tax burden. That is the highest percentage ever, under any Government. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Over the next two years, £2.5 billion extra is being put into our schools as a result of decisions taken by this Conservative Government.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about spending on schools and hospitals, and I will tell him where the real problem lies. Today we spend nearly £50 billion in payments on interest to those we have borrowed from as a result of the legacy of the Labour party. That is more than we spend on the NHS pay bill, and it is more than we spend on our core—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The Prime Minister’s answer will be heard, as I indicated that the question from the Leader of the Opposition would be heard. Mr Gapes, you are a senior and cerebral denizen of the House. This excessive gesticulation is not good for you, man. Calm yourself.

Theresa May: We spend £50 billion every year on debt interest payments to people we have borrowed from. That is more than the NHS pay bill, it is more than our core schools budget and it is more than we spend on defence. That is the result of the economy we were left by the Labour party in government. And what does the Leader of the Opposition want to do? He wants to borrow £500 billion more, which would make the situation worse and would mean even less money for schools and hospitals.

Tim Loughton: On 22 August 2015, 11 men in my constituency tragically lost their lives in the Shoreham airshow disaster. More than 26 months later, no decision has been taken on criminal charges and the coroner’s inquest has been delayed again until November 2018. The families of the victims have just had their application for exceptional case funding rejected by the Legal Aid Agency, and they will likely be the only people at the inquest not to be legally represented. Will my right hon. Friend agree to look at the case again and to meet the families to ensure that they have proper access to justice? This exceptionally tragic case has a much wider public interest for safety at all airshows.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and I fully understand the concerns of the families. He talks about the timetable for decisions, and the Department for Transport has accepted the air accidents investigation branch’s recommendation to commission an independent review. The Department is working with the air accidents investigation branch to determine the exact scope of the review. The Civil Aviation Authority has accepted all the recommendations. Considerable work is going on to learn the lessons from this disaster, and obviously we are also committed to ensuring that, where there is a public disaster, people are able to have proper representation. I will ask the Lord Chancellor to look at the questions raised by my hon. Friend.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the zero tolerance there has to be for bad sexual practices and behaviour? I certainly commit my Members to working with the Government to make sure that we have a system that we can be proud of and that will protect all members of the Houses of Parliament.
I also pass on my condolences to the family and friends of Frank Doran on his untimely and sad death this week.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House how much a working single parent can expect to lose because of the roll-out of universal credit?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to work across the House on this important issue. He refers to sexual misconduct,  but it is important that any processes that are put in place not only look at sexual misconduct but look at issues such as bullying, as well—that is also important.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised the roll-out of universal credit with me before. As he knows, the reason why we have introduced universal credit is to ensure that people are encouraged into the workplace and that when they are in the workplace they are able to keep more of the money they earn. I believe that that is an important principle. It underpins what we are doing and will continue to do so.

Ian Blackford: The reality is that new research shows that working single parents could lose an average of £1,350 a year because of the cuts to work allowances. Universal credit is fast becoming Theresa May’s poll tax. The Prime Minister has a habit of U-turning, so will she U-turn one more time and fix the problems with universal credit?

Theresa May: I have underlined the principle that lies behind universal credit, which I believe is a very important one. That is why when we look at the support that is given to people it is not just about the support they receive in financial terms on universal credit; it is also about the support they receive to help them to get into the workplace to ensure that they can actually meet the requirements of getting into the workplace and that when they are in the workplace they can keep more of the money they earn. That is an important principle. We will continue to roll out universal credit, looking carefully at its implementation as we do so, because we are doing this in a careful way, over a period of time. But the important principle is that universal credit is a simpler system that ensures people keep more as they earn more.

Cheryl Gillan: In Chesham and Amersham, we are acutely aware that infrastructure is vital for economic success, particularly that of other parts of the country. However, we still have areas that do not have access to high-speed broadband, and with the advent of electric vehicles we are going to need to install an extensive charging network. What further action can the Government take to ensure the timely completion of our broadband infrastructure and what they can do to guarantee the rapid roll-out of electric vehicle charging points, so that Buckinghamshire residents and businesses do not just bear the brunt of infrastructure development, but can take advantage of the opportunities offered by modern technology?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we want to ensure that we take the advantages offered by modern technology. That is why these issues have been addressed in our industrial strategy and will continue to be addressed. We recognise that when we talk about infrastructure in this country, increasingly the IT infrastructure—the broadband infrastructure—is part of that; this is not only about the physical road and rails infrastructure. So we are investing £790 million in improving broadband, taking our public investment to £1.7 billion. We are also, as she says, leading the world in the development of electric cars, and we need to ensure that we have those vehicle charging points. So we have put in place, and are putting in place, grants and policy measures to ensure that we see those charging points so that people can take advantage of those new vehicles.

David Linden: If the Prime Minister is serious about building a country that works for everyone, can she tell the House why under-25s are not included in the national living wage and will she address the scandal that is the national minimum wage for apprentices of £3.50 per hour?

Theresa May: It is important that we have the national living wage. It was our party, in government, that introduced the national living wage. It has had an important impact on people and, obviously, the national living wage continues to increase.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Prime Minister join in the positive comments this week from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) who welcomed the development of some family hubs? Will she encourage our excellent Conservative mayors and councils to be champions of these hubs, which can so improve the lives of children, including the most vulnerable children, by strengthening their families?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. We all recognise the value of stable and strong families, and this is a cause she has championed, not only through her time in this House, but outside it. I am happy to join her in welcoming the development of family hubs, and I will certainly encourage Conservative mayors and councils across the country to be champions of them.

Chris Law: As the Prime Minister will be fully aware, my great city of Dundee has been repeatedly in the news over the last week: Dundee has launched its European capital of culture bid; it is now the world centre for pharmaceutical innovation; and , no less, listed Dundee as one of the top 10 places to visit on earth, making it “Scotland’s coolest city”. So wouldn’t it be great if the Prime Minister today could finally tell the innovative, creative and cool people of Dundee and the surrounding area what precisely is the UK Government’s date for delivering their full and fair share of the Tay cities deal?

Theresa May: I am afraid I did not hear the end of the question. The hon. Gentleman stands up and waxes lyrically about his city of Dundee. He will recall that I was asked about Dundee’s city of culture bid last week, and I made the point that a number of places throughout the UK might put in bids. On the creative industries, I am pleased to see the development of the V&A in Dundee. The Tay cities deal will be important for Dundee and the whole Tay area, as other city deals in Scotland have been for the areas in which they have been agreed.

Alex Chalk: Cheltenham general hospital’s A&E is hugely valued by me and my constituents and we want to see it preserved and enhanced. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local NHS managers who are currently formulating the draft sustainability and transformation plan must listen carefully to the voices of my constituents and others in Gloucestershire, and ensure that any proposals truly command local support?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are clear that proposals should be developed at a local level by local clinicians, while taking account of and listening to the views of local residents and local constituents on the relevant matters. It is important that local people are heard and know that decisions have been taken in the light of any concerns they have raised. I understand that any proposals for urgent care that are developed by the Gloucestershire STP will be subject to full public consultation in due course.

Gavin Newlands: Today, the Government will publish their first report detailing progress towards the ratification of the Istanbul convention on violence against women, as required by Eilidh Whiteford’s private Member’s Bill, which was enacted earlier this year. After five years, I hope that today’s report signals that we will not have to wait much longer for ratification. Nevertheless, women fleeing from domestic violence do not have the luxury of time, so just as the Prime Minister has vowed to root out the sexual harassment and misogyny in this place, will she commit to long-term, sustainable funding to ensure that all women have somewhere safe to go when fleeing violence?

Theresa May: Over the past few years, both when I was Home Secretary and under my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary, we have taken steps to ring-fence certain domestic-violence funding over a period of time so that there can be greater certainty for organisations that work in this area. There is much for us to do, because sadly we still see domestic violence and abuse. One of the other steps we are taking is of course to bring in new legislation on domestic violence, which I hope will clarify the situation. Nevertheless, we need to address this across a wide variety of action.

Oliver Dowden: How we treat our farmed animals is an indication of our civility as a nation. In this country, we have a record of which we can be rightly proud. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about reports that there might be a relaxation of our standards as a result of our leaving the European Union? Will she take this opportunity to reassure me that that is not the case and that, in fact, we will seize the opportunity to improve standards and thereby enhance the reputation of British produce?

Theresa May: First, I agree with my hon. Friend that we are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We want to continue to have a reputation as a country with those high standards, so leaving the European Union is not going to change that. We remain committed to high animal welfare standards. Indeed, as he says, we may have the opportunity to enhance those standards so that we can further demonstrate to people this country’s reputation as a place where they can be safe and secure in the knowledge of the conditions in which their food has been prepared.

Bridget Phillipson: The Prime Minister will be aware that 4 million children in our country are growing up in poverty, and that that number has risen.  Two thirds of those children are from working families. Does she still seriously believe that the introduction of universal credit will bring that number down?

Theresa May: I am pleased to see that the number of children in absolute poverty has actually come down under this Government, but of course we need to be aware of the impact of decisions that have been made. We are looking carefully at the implementation of universal credit. Let me repeat what I said in response to the question of the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), which is that the point of universal credit is that it is a more straightforward and simpler system, but also it helps people to get into the workplace and ensures that they keep more of the money that they earn. I think that that is important.

Kevin Hollinrake: This Government’s industrial strategy makes the historic commitment to have a fairer distribution of infrastructure spending across the regions—that is our roads, railways and digital networks. In advance of the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend confirm that commitment and the commitment to a rebalancing of our economy by more investment spending in the regions, not least in Yorkshire?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend stands up well for his county and constituency on this matter. I am very happy to confirm that we will maintain that commitment in our forthcoming industrial strategy White Paper. We do want to see a fairer distribution of infrastructure spending across the country because we know that infrastructure investment is important to unlocking economic opportunities, economic growth and productivity in our towns, villages and cities. We have backed that with ambitious commitments to increase our spending on infrastructure by 50% over the next four years, but I can assure him that we will be looking at that infrastructure spending across the whole country.

Lisa Nandy: I thank the Prime Minister for her opening words on the horrific revelations this week, but can I say to her that, three years ago, I brought evidence to her in this House that Whips had used information about sexual abuse to demand loyalty from MPs. I brought that information to her in this House and I warned her at the time that, unless real action was taken, we risked repeating those injustices again today. On three occasions, I asked her to act and on three occasions she did not, so can I ask her: in this of all weeks, for the fourth time, will she finally take concrete action to tackle this?

Theresa May: I will, of course, look back at the questions that the hon. Lady said that she raised with me in this House. I assume that she raised those with me when I was Home Secretary. I am very clear that the Whips Office—I hope that this goes for all Whips Offices across the House—should make it clear to people that, where there are any sexual abuse allegations that could be of a criminal nature, people should go to the police. It is not appropriate for those to be dealt with by Whips Offices; they should go to the police. That continues to be the case.
As I say, I will look at the questions that the hon. Lady raised with me, but I am very clear that we will take action against those where there are allegations that we see and the evidence is there that there has been misconduct. I say to her that I hope that we will all send a message from this House today that we want people in this place to be able to feel confident to bring forward cases, and we need to ensure that those cases are dealt with in a way that people can have confidence on both sides that they will be properly investigated. That means I want to see a good process in this Parliament, so that people do not feel that they have to go through a party political process to have their allegations considered.

Leo Docherty: My constituency of Aldershot is the home of the British Army and of many thousands of servicemen and women who are loyal, resolute and steadfast in their service to the Crown. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree, when her very busy schedule allows, to visit the Aldershot garrison to meet servicemen and women and to thank them for their service?

Theresa May: I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise that the men and women of our armed services serve with great distinction and loyalty, and we are all grateful to them for the service that they give to this country. That is why we are committed to maintaining 2% of our GDP being spent on defence. He very kindly invites me to visit his constituency, and I will be very happy to do so if my diary allows.

Vincent Cable: A few days ago, the Chancellor told the House that the Government could not afford to borrow £50 billion to invest in housing because of the burden on the next generation. The Communities Secretary says that the Government must borrow £50 billion because of the burden of unaffordable housing on the next generation. Will the Prime Minister adjudicate?

Theresa May: There is no need to adjudicate. The Government absolutely agree that it is necessary for us to ensure that we are building more homes across the country. We have already announced policies to enable that to happen. A number of proposals were set out in the housing White Paper. I was very pleased to announce the extra £2 billion for affordable housing at our party conference, and the extra £10 billion for the Help to Buy scheme, which genuinely helps people to get their first foot on the housing ladder. We are seeing, and will continue to see, more houses being built under this Government.

Chris Davies: Earlier this week in Llangammarch Wells in my constituency, a horrific farmhouse fire claimed the lives of a father and five young children. This has had a devastating effect not just on the family, but on the tight-knit community that surrounds them. Will my right hon. Friend join me and this House in sending our sympathies to the bereaved family and to everyone in Llangammarch? Will she also praise the outstanding work of our emergency services, who dealt with this appalling tragedy with true dedication and professionalism?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised a very tragic case. I am sure that everybody across the whole House will want to join him in sending condolences to the family and friends of those affected by the fire. This was, indeed, a terrible tragedy. As he said, it is not only the family, but the local community who have been affected. The emergency services did sterling work. I am pleased to commend their bravery and professionalism in dealing with the issue. The Secretary of State for Wales has spoken to the police and they will remain in touch over the coming days. Once again, our emergency services do an amazing job protecting us, as we see in so many instances. They never know when they are going to be called out to such a tragic incident.

Ben Bradshaw: Given today’s news that the Electoral Commission is investigating Arron Banks, the main financial backer of Brexit, and given the significant British connections being uncovered by the American Department of Justice’s special counsel Robert Mueller in investigating Russian interference in the US presidential election, will the Prime Minister assure me that the UK Government and all their agencies are co-operating fully with the Mueller investigation or will do so if asked?

Theresa May: We take very seriously issues of Russian intervention, or Russian attempts to intervene in electoral processes or the democratic processes of any country, as we would with any other states involved in trying to intervene in elections. We do, of course, work closely with our United States partners. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as part of that relationship, we co-operate with them when required.

Jack Lopresti: Last month I was in the Kurdistan region of Iraq—I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—where I saw people’s enthusiasm for independence and a fresh dialogue with Baghdad. The subsequent military actions against the peshmerga by Iranian-backed militia and the Iraqi army are wholly unjust and completely unacceptable. Will the Prime Minister accept that the peshmerga and the Kurdistan region, to whom we owe so much both for resisting Daesh when the Iraqi army dumped their weapons and ran and for helping to keep our own streets safe, remain vital to our security? Will she do all she can to encourage a resolution based on full respect for the Iraqi constitution and the democratic will of the Kurdish people?

Theresa May: It is right that we are working with our international partners in the region to defeat Daesh together with the global coalition. Daesh is losing territory. The action being taken is having an impact on it; its finances have been hit, its leadership is being killed and its fighters are demoralised. But we do want to see political reconciliation in Iraq and a political settlement to the Syria conflict to deny Daesh safe space and prevent its re-emergence. My hon. Friend raises a particular point about Iraq and the Kurdistan region. The Government have always been clear that any political process towards independence should be agreed with the Government of Iraq. We want political reconciliation in Iraq and we have been urging all parties to promote calm, to pursue dialogue and to take this issue forward through dialogue.

Alison McGovern: An hour ago, the Government published a report by the Right Reverend James Jones, “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power”, which the Prime Minister commissioned to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated. Given what we have heard in this session and given the events surrounding the Grenfell Tower disaster, I worry that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is already being repeated. Will the Prime Minister commit her Government to supporting both a duty of candour for all public officials and, as the report requires, an end to public bodies spending limitless sums to provide themselves with representation which surpasses that available to families?

Theresa May: Obviously, the House will appreciate that I have to be careful about what I say in relation to Hillsborough because of ongoing criminal proceedings, but I want to pay tribute to the work of Bishop James Jones throughout: in chairing the independent panel, as my adviser on this issue and with the family forums. He has done an excellent job once again. His report into the experiences of the Hillsborough families, which has been published today, as the hon. Lady says, is important. The Government will need to look very carefully at the, I think, 25 points of learning that come out of it and we will want to do so. I have always been very clear that the experience of the Hillsborough families should not be repeated. That is why we have looked at and are committed to the concept of the public advocate. We want to ensure that people have the support they need and it is important that we learn the lessons of Hillsborough. As she knows, I was involved in making the decision that enabled the Hillsborough families to have legal support on a basis that I felt was fair in relation to the other parties involved in that inquest. I assure her that we will not forget the Hillsborough families, who have been dignified throughout the many years they have been waiting for justice. We will not forget them, we will not forget their experience and we will ensure that we learn from it to improve the experience of others in the future.

Mark Francois: May I cheekily make a diary suggestion to the Prime Minister? If she could remain in the Chamber for just a few moments after questions, she will hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) introduce the Armed Forces (Statute of Limitations) Bill, which would provide protection to those brave service personnel who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Like her, and I am sure the whole House, I want to see the setting up of the Northern Ireland Executive, but does she agree that we cannot do that at the price of pandering to Sinn Féin and allowing a witch hunt for those people who served so bravely for so many years to uphold the rule of law?

Theresa May: I am not sure I am going to be able to satisfy my right hon. Friend on the first point he raises, but I can assure him that I am aware of the  proposed legislation my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) is bringing forward. We all want to see the Northern Ireland Executive restored. We recognise that the question of legacy issues has been there throughout the discussions in Northern Ireland and continues to be. What I want to ensure is that any investigations that take place in the future take place in a fair and proportionate way. Our soldiers did serve bravely, as my right hon. Friend says, in upholding the rule of law. It is important that we never forget all the people who lost their lives at the hands of the terrorists in Northern Ireland and it is important that any investigations are conducted fairly and proportionately.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Members are exercising their knee muscles and there is no harm in that.

Tracy Brabin: As the Prime Minister will be aware, self-employed people are not eligible for shared parental leave. This places the burden of childcare on the mum, and denies fathers financial support and bonding time with the child. Has the Prime Minister seen the demands of the March of the Mummies, and can she give us assurances that she is prioritising this very urgent issue?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady raises an important issue and I am happy to look at the point that has been made, but I remind her that the reason we have shared parental leave for anybody is because when I was Minister for Women and Equalities I ensured it was introduced.

Kirstene Hair: In my constituency, one of the big challenges as we leave the European Union is the uncertainty about the seasonal migrant workforce. Angus produces 30% of Scotland’s soft fruit and welcomes over 4,000 seasonal workers every year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need clarity on the new migration framework— for the benefit of these loyal workers, for the prosperity of our British soft fruit industry and to support the overall rural economy of our United Kingdom?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the importance of supporting the rural economy across the whole of the United Kingdom. In relation to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which she has referred to, obviously we will, as we leave the European Union, be bringing forward new immigration rules, which will enable us to have that control that we have not had in the past for those coming from the European Union. We recognise that we need to do that in the national interest. We need to look at the needs of the labour market, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to look at the needs of the UK labour market and to further inform our work as we bring those new immigration rules in. The issue my hon. Friend has raised is one they will look at.

Armed Forces (Statute of Limitations)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Richard Benyon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create statutory limitations on court proceedings against current and former members of the armed forces for certain alleged offences committed during military operations or similar circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Everyone in this House, and particularly those of us who have served in the armed forces, wants our armed forces always to be seen as the most professional in the world. This means we want them to abide by the strict codes of behaviour we impose on them and, in addition, to abide by the international rules of war.
In the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and elsewhere, we have asked our armed forces to operate in highly complex war-fighting scenarios. Almost to a man and a woman, they have acquitted themselves in the finest traditions of the three services. The reputation of this country and our armed forces has been enhanced by their professionalism, restraint, compassion and courage.
There is a problem, however. First, there has emerged out of the Iraq conflict an industry in which lawyers—sadly, often dishonest lawyers—have used vast amounts of public money to attempt to bring cases against current and former members of the armed forces. If there was any truth in these cases, that would be one thing, but the abject failure of the allegations to stick shows how vile and corrupted the process became.
The Government were right to close down the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. The organisation was processing over 3,000 cases, which gives an indication of the absurdity of some of those claims. My understanding is that just 20 cases were running at the time of IHAT’s demise, and none of those is believed to be viable by prosecutors.
My Bill would bring an end to what has become known as “lawfare”. Never again would dreadful individuals such as Phil Shiner be able to line their pockets, or the pockets of their legal firms, with vast amounts of public funds while pursuing our veterans into old age.
My Bill would set a statute of limitations beyond which it would be impossible to bring a case against any individual about whom an allegation was made regarding actions he or she took while serving on operations. I would argue that 10 years is the right period for which to legislate. I fully accept that there would have to be caveats and exceptions, and my Bill would define what we mean by operations. A decade gives plenty of time to bring forward legitimate cases in which real wrongdoing has occurred, and it is about the timescale after which evidential trails start to run cold. The House should be indebted to the Defence Committee, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and the Sub-Committee that met under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), because their work on this issue has informed the Bill.
Later this month in Belfast, a 78-year-old man will face charges including attempted murder. Dennis Hutchings was an exemplary soldier who ended his career as a senior warrant officer. He has a severe heart condition  and only 11% kidney function. The allegations against him relate to an incident in 1974 when a patrol he was leading in Northern Ireland—this was a time of intense terrorist activity—fired on an individual, who was killed. In 1975, he was told that no action would be taken against him or any member of his patrol, and that was confirmed many years later with a similar message from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
So what has changed? No new evidence is being laid before the courts—in fact there is less evidence, as two of the three witnesses are dead—and the firearms, casings and original file have been lost, but the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions claimed in January that new evidence had come to light. Many fear that we are seeing a form of retributive politics. Extreme nationalist-leaning individuals in the Northern Ireland justice system have decided to reignite such investigations.
The Government have rightly said that there should be no bias in how such investigations are carried out but, unfortunately, there already is a bias. Of the 3,600 deaths in the troubles, 90% were at the hands of terrorists. These were people who went out with the express intention of killing and maiming. The security forces went out with the express intention of saving lives. I spent most of my time in the fields and streets of Northern Ireland—most of my early 20s were spent there—protecting prison officers, reservists and police officers from being assassinated in or near their homes. So please can we end this argument that there is some kind of equivalence between terrorists and the security forces? There is a limit of two years for any former terrorist found guilty after the Good Friday agreement was signed. Many feel that the on-the-runs letters, which were part of the Good Friday agreement, effectively give terrorists a statute of limitations.
More than 300,000 people served in Op Banner in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 2007. Those of us who are still alive will testify to the complexity of that operation. Many of us, myself included, witnessed acts of extraordinary restraint and professionalism by young soldiers in the face of extraordinary provocation.
Like most Op Banner veterans, I have been moved by the ability of community leaders and politicians to bury the enmities of the past, and to enter government with those who killed, or ordered the killings of, people they knew. Of course there are ongoing tensions in Northern Ireland, and we all hope these can be ironed out in the coming weeks and months. However, in the main, what Northern Ireland has done in the last few years is so impressive—it is moving on. It is moving on from the horrors of killing and maiming.
Terrorists who would otherwise be in prison walk free under the terms of the Good Friday agreement. The person who slaughtered seven members of my battalion’s band while they were playing to tourists in Regent’s Park is known to the authorities but is not pursued. So why is Dennis Hutchings being pursued? Why are we now facing the possibility of many more veterans receiving the knock on the door? My Bill would end this nonsense. Op Banner ended 10 years ago, and so would all pursuits of veterans into old age by a flawed and, some would argue, deeply prejudicial judicial system.
If we discuss this with any audience, we get a clear message that unites left and right, old and young, and people who have a detailed knowledge of military matters  and those who have none. They want to draw a line under the troubles. For them, hounding Dennis Hutchings and others to the ends of their lives is abhorrent.
Those who agree that these prosecutions and investigations are wrong, but disagree that this is the way forward, have to answer some clear and resounding questions. What would they do to end this grotesque charade? Do we just put up with it and hope that no one notices? Can we imagine any other country in the world doing this to its veterans? Do we really want to see people who should be appreciated—even revered—for what they did being taken from their homes, questioned, and prosecuted for actions they took on our behalf many decades ago in one of the most impossible campaigns of modern times? It is time for this House to reflect the mood of the vast majority of people in society.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Richard Benyon, Richard Drax, Emma Little Pengelly, Dr Julian Lewis, Johnny Mercer, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Jim Shannon, Bob Stewart, Leo Docherty, Mr Kevan Jones, Sir Nicholas Soames and James Gray present the Bill.
Richard Benyon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June 2018 and to be printed (Bill 120).

OPPOSITION DAY - [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Armed Forces Pay

Nia Griffith: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the pay of Armed Forces personnel has been capped at 1 per cent in 2017-18 and that this represents another below inflation pay settlement; further notes that the size of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and Royal Marines is below stated targets; notes that dissatisfaction with pay has been identified by service personnel as a reason for leaving their respective force; and calls on the Government to end the public sector pay cap for the Armed Forces and give Armed Forces personnel a fair pay rise.
Our armed forces represent the very best of what this country stands for. Across the House, we recognise their dedication and their professionalism and, especially at this time of year, we honour the sacrifices that they make on our behalf. Yet when it comes to their pay, our armed forces personnel have not been treated with the fairness and decency that their service deserves. In every year since 2010, the Conservative party in government has made a conscious decision to give our brave men and women a real-terms pay cut. As a result, regardless of rising rents in service accommodation and cuts to tax credits, the pay that service personnel receive has lagged way behind inflation in each of the past seven years. This sorry state of affairs means that the starting salary of an Army private has been cut by over £1,000 in real terms since Labour left office. Is it any wonder that the Government are presiding over a crisis in recruitment and retention?

Lucy Frazer: Of course, pay is very important. However, does the hon. Lady accept that in a survey conducted among 12,000 members of the armed forces this year, pay did not feature in any of the top five categories, and that in fact the Government are doing a huge amount to ensure that terms of employment are right and that the armed forces have a good service model?

Nia Griffith: I am not quite sure where the hon. and learned Lady has been, because that is not evident in the materials that I have been reading. For example, AFCAS—the armed forces continuous attitude survey—clearly states that two thirds of personnel do not find levels of pay satisfactory. That is one of the main reasons why people consider leaving the armed forces.

Johnny Mercer: I do not want to drone on about it, but I was in the Army for 14 years, and not once has someone spoken to me about their pay. Looking incrementally at how we are paid compared with our NATO allies or those in the US, the British armed forces have a respectable pay deal that goes up each year in pay bands with the X factor. It is simply disingenuous to say that there is a military out there that is deeply disaffected by how much it is paid.

Nia Griffith: It surprises me to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, because not only do we have the evidence in the AFCAS report, but the pay review body itself has talked about frustration with levels of pay and identified that as a real source of concern within the armed forces. I think we must be living on different planets.

Madeleine Moon: Perhaps it depends on where you come from, because certainly in Wales plenty of people are complaining to me about pay issues in the armed forces, and people are struggling to cope with their bills. People have rung me this morning concerned about press reports on the cutting of the £29-a-day allowance for service in Iraq, which they see as a further cut to their capacity to cope while remaining in the armed forces. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate forward today. It is an issue and I am glad we are here to discuss it.

Nia Griffith: I thank my hon. Friend. She very much lives in the real world and is very aware of the cuts that have affected our armed forces, particularly the cuts to pay.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nia Griffith: I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.

Anna Soubry: I represent Chetwynd barracks and am very proud of the great service of the Royal Engineers there, and I am a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence, with responsibility for welfare. I have to say that pay was not, and is not, on the list of concerns of those constituents who serve so well in our armed forces. Accommodation is another matter, but it is not about pay. With great respect to the hon. Lady, perhaps those listening to this are not being done a great service. There are other issues about our armed forces that we should be debating, but not this one.

Nia Griffith: I agree that pay is not the only factor that makes it difficult to recruit and retain staff, but it is certainly a significant one when both AFCAS and the pay review body list it as such.

Kevan Jones: I find the comments of Conservative Members quite astonishing, because I remember as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence being harangued by Conservative Members in opposition arguing that we did a bad deal for the armed forces, even though we accepted the pay review body’s recommendation. With regard to the X factor, in 2013 the pay review body chairman was sacked because the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, did not want to recommend an increase in the X factor.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend refers to an absolutely shocking situation. It is very disappointing that Conservative Members are starting this debate on such a negative note.
More and more personnel are choosing to leave the armed forces, and every one of the services is shrinking in size. A recent Government-commissioned report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) found that recruitment to the services was “running to stand still”, leading to the “hollowing out” of our armed forces. Yet rather than get to grips with this problem, the Conservatives’ record is a litany of missed targets and broken promises. Their 2015 manifesto pledged to keep the size of the Army above 82,000. That was hardly an ambitious target, considering it was well over 100,000 when Labour left government, but miss the target they did, and the trade-trained strength of the Army is now just 77,600.
The figure of 82,000 had mysteriously disappeared by the time of the Conservatives’ 2017 manifesto. That fateful document simply promised to
“maintain the overall size of the armed forces”.
We can add that pledge to the rubbish pile along with the rest of the Tory manifesto, because since June’s election we have seen a reduction in the size of the Army, a reduction in the size of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and a reduction in the size of the Royal Air Force. Now we are in the shameful position where the Defence Secretary cannot rule out cuts to our Royal Marines, or even promise that the Army will not shrink further.
The Government may be complacent about the diminishing size of our armed forces, but we are not. At a time of immense global uncertainty—

Jack Dromey: I was for 15 years chair of the defence unions and responsible for our membership of the commission on Commonwealth war graves in north-west Europe, where 80% of our war dead are buried. I saw at first hand their heroism and their history. Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when our country faces an ever more serious threat to our national security, it is absolutely wrong to cut tens of thousands from the armed forces and to say that those who remain will suffer a pay cut?

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend makes the point in very eloquently. We live in a world of immense insecurity.

Bob Stewart: Does that mean that the hon. Lady is prepared to commit to having more than 82,000 personnel in our Army if Labour ever gets into power? I would totally support that.

Nia Griffith: The hon. Gentleman needs to take cognisance of the fact that in every year we were in office, we spent considerably more on defence than the 2% of GDP commitment. In fact, in our last year in office, we spent 2.5% of GDP on defence—a figure that this Government have never matched.

Leo Docherty: I am a former soldier and not a mathematician, but I suggest that the hon. Lady studies the figures that the MOD has released, which show that in 2015 the annual budget of the MOD was £34.3 billion, and that in 2020-21 it will be £39.7 billion. That number is clearly going up, so overall the budget is increasing. To characterise the situation as a landscape of cuts is, frankly, erroneous.

Nia Griffith: Indeed, the number needs to go up, because costs are escalating. We have said clearly that we would match that increase, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that costs are escalating far higher than that figure will accommodate.
At this time of immense global uncertainty, we cannot allow numbers to continue to slide, month after month, while all we get from the Government is warm words and crippling complacency. The Government’s chosen recruitment partner, Capita, is completely unfit for the job at hand. We have had warning after warning that Capita has not fulfilled its basic obligations, but as the number of personnel recruited continues to fall, the amount paid to Capita has grown and grown.
We propose to take real action to begin to address that state of affairs, by lifting the public sector pay cap and giving our forces a fair pay rise. I recognise that that alone would not be a silver bullet for the crisis in recruitment and retention, but we know from personnel that pay is one of the main reasons why they choose to leave our armed forces. Satisfaction with basic rates of pay and pension benefits is at the lowest level ever recorded. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has found that there is an
“over-riding sense of uncertainty and an increasing view that the offer will only get worse”.
Barely a third of service personnel are satisfied with their basic pay, and 42% have said that pay was a push factor for them in choosing to leave the forces. Is that any wonder, when our servicemen and women have had to shoulder real-terms pay cuts that have left them badly worse off? Between 2010 and 2016, the starting salary of a corporal fell by nearly £2,000 in real terms, whereas for a flight lieutenant that figure was £2,800.
At the same time as they have been hit by real-terms pay cuts, our servicemen and women have faced rising costs in forces housing because changes to charges for service family accommodation mean rent increases for nearly three quarters of occupants. The Government’s future accommodation model risks adding to that pressure because it fractures forces communities by forcing service families into the private rented sector, with all the additional costs that that brings to them and the taxpayer. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has warned of a “perfect storm” for personnel who face increases in rent and national insurance contributions, at the same time as their pay is cut in real terms.
Let us be in no doubt that the responsibility for the below-inflation rises lies firmly with the Government. Since the Government lost their majority at the general election, Ministers have made great play of the supposed independence of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. They would have us believe that the pay review body sets the rates and Ministers merely implement them, as if it were some coincidence that the body had not recommended an above-inflation rise since 2010. But that is little more than a cynical attempt by Ministers to shirk responsibility, because of course they instruct the pay review body to work within the context of the cap. Despite all the warm words from the Secretary of State and Ministers, the Treasury has said that it will not fund increases above and beyond the 1% cap; that is a fact.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is worse than that? The idea is that the pay review body should be independent and able to make recommendations for Ministers and the Government to look at, but in 2013 the then Prime Minister sacked Alasdair Smith, the chair of the pay review body, because he made recommendations that the Treasury and the Government did not like. Does she agree that that is outrageous?

Nia Griffith: As my hon. Friend says, that is absolutely outrageous, and it betrays an appalling attitude on the part of the Government.

Andrew Murrison: I am listening carefully to the points that the hon. Lady makes, and as a current reservist I have every sympathy  with the idea that pay should rise. However, does she appreciate that within ranks in the armed forces there is pay progression? It is right to talk about starting salaries, but one also has to appreciate that pay will progress within particular ranks.
Has the hon. Lady taken into account the non-contributory pension that applies to the armed forces? Despite the fact that the 2015 changes represented a deterioration in terms and conditions, the pension still represents a wonderful gold standard that is the envy of both the public and private sectors.

Nia Griffith: In any career, one would hope to have career progression. The hon. Gentleman also refers to the fact that the pension offer is not as generous as it once was. The problem is that people still face a perfect storm of rising costs and pay that is not keeping up with those costs.

Ruth Smeeth: Does my hon. Friend agree that our Conservative colleagues seem to be confused about the difference between a pay rise and a pay increment? Those are two very different things; one of them is an entitlement and the other is in the gift of the Government.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend expresses that perfectly.
Of course, the pay review body can recommend a higher award for a specific group of personnel, but if it did so, it would have to reduce increases for others. In other words, it would be robbing Petra to pay Paula. Even when increased pressure on recruitment and retention has been raised with the pay review body, it has been unable to recommend a pay rise to deal with the problem, given the Treasury’s insistence that it will not provide the funds.
Rather than passing the buck, is it not time for the Government to do the right thing and lift the public sector pay cap across the board so that our armed forces and, indeed, all public sector workers—firefighters, nurses and ambulance workers—get the pay award that they deserve? That is a popular policy that commands support across the country. More than three quarters of voters, including 68% of Conservative voters, want to give public sector workers a pay rise. I hope that that straightforward proposal will command support in the House this afternoon.
Let us remember that while other public sector workers have unions to work on their behalf, our armed forces do not, and so it is all the more important that we in this House speak up on their behalf. I say to Conservative Members that there is no point in saying that they back our forces personnel if they refuse to stand up for them when it counts. There is no point Conservative Members pretending that they want forces’ pay to improve if they are not prepared to vote for it. Members should listen to what our service personnel are telling us. The pay review body has found that
“Service personnel are becoming increasingly frustrated with public sector pay policy. They feel their pay is being unfairly constrained in a period when costs are rising, private sector earnings are starting to recover, and the high tempo demands on the Armed Forces have not diminished.”
Those men and women work tirelessly to keep us safe. Surely, the very least they deserve is fair pay for their service.
The fact is that we cannot do security on the cheap. Whether we are talking about moving the goalposts so that we barely scrape over the line to meet NATO’s 2% spending target, cutting corners with short-sighted defence cuts that have weakened our defence capabilities or imposing a public sector pay cap on our brave armed forces personnel, the Government simply will not stump up the cash to invest in our national security. I make this challenge to Conservative Members: they have talked the talk, but are they prepared to walk the walk into the Lobby with us this afternoon and show the courage of their convictions in their vote?

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to discuss armed forces pay. The motion reflects a shared sense on both sides of House of the value our armed forces bring to the nation. It reflects an appreciation of their unparalleled bravery and enormous efforts all around the globe—whether fighting Daesh in the middle east, providing vital reassurance to our Estonian allies against Russia aggression, or bringing essential humanitarian aid to those whose lives have been devastated by hurricanes in the Caribbean. Lastly, it reflects a desire that those who put their lives on the line should receive the reward that is their due. At the same time, the motion presents but a partial picture of a complex issue, so I welcome this opportunity to correct some the misconceptions and provide some of the missing context.

Nick Smith: Defence spend as a percentage of GDP in the final year of the previous Labour Government was 2.5%. Will the Minister tell me what it is now?

Mark Lancaster: Off the top of my head, I would say that it is just over 2%.

Michael Fallon: It is 2.16%.

Mark Lancaster: I was going to say 2.14%, but it is 2.16%.
First, there is the broader fiscal context. We should not forget why pay restraint was imposed in the first place back in 2010. It was a consequence of a large inherited economic deficit. The whole public sector, not just our armed forces, was subject to the same conditions. Given that a huge chunk of the defence budget is spent on personnel—currently, just under £9 billion, which is more than we spend on equipment support—the MOD had an important part to play in supporting the Government’s efforts to restore the UK’s economic credibility. After all, a stronger economy means stronger defence. Having taken those tough decisions, we have since seen the deficit reduce by three quarters and the economy grow, while taxes are low and employment is high, which benefits us all.

Sylvia Hermon: Most of us in the Chamber sat through the proceedings on the ten-minute rule Bill, and no one spoke against it. Tribute was paid to the courage, the service and the sacrifice of our armed forces—not only in Northern Ireland, but in Iraq—and the Minister put his tribute on the record at the beginning of his response. There is a moral obligation,  so I do not want to hear about fiscal reasons. I want this Government to recognise their moral obligation and duty to our armed forces and to lift the 1% pay cap in recognition of the armed forces’ courage and sacrifice for the country and the Queen.

Mark Lancaster: I will move on in a moment to that very question. I would add that many of us also sat through Prime Minister’s questions, and I would simply refer the hon. Lady to the very powerful argument that the Prime Minister made in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the very subject she has raised.
The second point this motion ignores is the impact of pay progression. Officers and other ranks are tied to incremental pay scales, and they routinely and regularly move up the bands. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about privates. The average private soldier starts on a salary of £18,673. After one year, through incremental pay alone—not including the 1% pay increase—that rises to £20,029, which is an increase of 7.26% in one year. After three years, the salary rises to £21,614, which is an increase of 15.8%, not including the 3% increase that would have been given. That is an increase in pay of almost 20% over the three years.

Kevan Jones: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being completely disingenuous—

John Bercow: Order. No, the hon. Gentleman must not use that word. He is a person of felicitous phrase and extensive vocabulary, and he must find some other way to express his irascibility with or disapproval of the Minister.

Kevan Jones: The Minister is wrong. The point is that, in any job, people get a pay increase because they are being trained and their ability to serve increases as that goes on. The fact is that the yearly increases my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned affect a private’s pay because they affect the levels of the bands and the percentages. He cannot argue that, just because somebody gets pay progression, not giving them an increase in their basic pay every year will not affect their ultimate pay. Of course it will.

Mark Lancaster: I am slightly worried about the hon. Gentleman’s approach. We have actually been great friends in this House for many years, so I am slightly surprised that he called me disingenuous. I am sure that I will get my revenge at some point. As somebody who continues, after 29 years, to serve in the armed forces, I would like to think that accusing me of all people of being disingenuous when it comes to the armed forces is slightly unfair. I like to think that I have done my bit.
At the end of the day, I do not think that a private soldier receiving £18,673 in their pocket on day one—admittedly before tax—and then receiving £21,614 after three years will care too much whether that is due to pay progression or annual increases; it is money in their pockets.

Michael Fallon: More money.

Mark Lancaster: More money, as my right hon. Friend says.

Conor McGinn: rose—

Kevan Jones: It’s less.

Mark Lancaster: Here we go: the hon. Gentleman says—perhaps this is testimony to Labour mathematics—that £21,614 is less than £18,673. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) should not keep hollering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of the stance taken by the Minister. Apart from anything else—he is chuckling about it—it is marginally discourteous to his hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who had requested an intervention and had it granted, before it was ripped away from him by the hon. Gentleman’s unseemly behaviour.

Conor McGinn: Talking about the figures, I was very concerned to read in the London Times this morning that the Government are considering scrapping the £29 deployment allowance that applies to soldiers on the frontline in Iraq. The Minister is an agreeable chap, and I would like to give him an opportunity to deny that categorically at the Dispatch Box.

Mark Lancaster: I am a very agreeable chap, but this is yet more speculation from The Times. No decision at all has been made to scrap the operational allowance. Every year since the operational allowance was introduced 12 years ago, there has been a review of where it should and should not apply. Soldiers have not been told that they will not receive it when they go to Iraq. I am deeply proud that this Government have doubled the operational allowance from £14 to £29. Finally—to get the last word, for the time being at least, with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—none of those figures takes into account the substantial rise in the personal tax allowance introduced while this Government have been in power.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Lancaster: I will not give way at the moment—I am taking my revenge—but I am sure he will get another chance.
Despite fiscal constraint, salaries in the armed forces throughout this period have not stagnated. Indeed, they have actually risen on average by 1.5%. What is more, the MOD has the option of introducing targeted payments where there are particular recruiting and retention issues. These payments can range from time-limited financial incentives through to longer-term recruitment and retention payments that recognise the particular challenges we face in retaining certain specialisms, such as military pilots or submariners.
That brings me to the third aspect of the pay story, which has been conveniently glossed over. Joining our forces comes with a range of often unacknowledged additional benefits: a non-contributory pension scheme, subsidised accommodation and food, access to free medical and dental care, and allowances packages—I have just mentioned one of them—towards additional costs. It is therefore unsurprising that pay is neither the primary reason why people enter the service, nor the primary reason why they leave.

Stephen Morgan: Does the Minister recognise the frustration felt by the armed forces when they see rising costs in accommodation, but no real pay rise?

Mark Lancaster: Let us be absolutely clear: the subsidised accommodation costs that our service personnel are charged are approximately two thirds—I repeat, two thirds—of what they would pay in the private sector. There has been a readjustment across the range, because some of the bands were completely out of date. For example, accommodation was graded according to how far it was from a public telephone box. What relevance does that have in 2017 compared to access to broadband? So there was a readjustment, but let us not forget that members of the armed forces pay considerably less than they would if they worked in the private sector.

Rishi Sunak: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend talk about non-pay benefits. My constituents at Catterick garrison and at RAF Leeming most often talk to me about the day-to-day hassle and unfairness they face as a result of their service. To that end, will he confirm the Government’s commitment to the armed forces covenant and perhaps develop further what they are doing to ensure that nobody is penalised by their service in our armed forces?

Mark Lancaster: I am delighted that perhaps we have a moment of consensus across the House when we talk about the military covenant. It is indeed one of the success stories of recent years. When I was in my previous role, which is now filled by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), we managed to convince the nation of the value of service, and to see so many companies signing up to the armed forces covenant—well over 1,400—is a testament to its success. Indeed, every local authority in England, Scotland and Wales—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Lancaster: I shall give way one more time and then I must make progress.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Minister for giving way. May I take him back to his comment about military salaries rising in real terms? Can he explain to the House why the Ministry of Defence publication of 1 September 2017 states:
“Fig. 11 highlights that growth in military salaries fell below inflation from financial year 2010/11 to 2014/15.”?
Will he source where his evidence is coming from, as opposed to the evidence that the rest of us are having to rely on, which is taken from the MOD’s own website?

Mark Lancaster: We are going back—are we not?—to the debate about the annual salary increase and incremental pay. I have always used the example of the private soldier, where we see almost a 20% salary increase over three years.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Lancaster: I have been generous, but I am going to make progress. I will give way again before I finish my speech.
In other words, when it comes to armed forces pay, context is all, and the decision to award a 1% pay increase in 2017 did not happen in isolation. It followed  a recommendation by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and Senior Salaries Review Body. They were clear that their decision
“broadly maintained pay comparability with the civilian sector”.
Critically, the AFPRB and SSRB are independent organisations that make annual recommendations. Their reports are detailed, comprehensive and take time to compile. For 2016-17, they gathered written and oral evidence from everyone from the Defence Secretary down, including more than 2,300 service personnel and 154 spouses. They held 186 discussion groups before arriving at a decision. Such a thorough, evidence-based approach is precisely why it would be wholly wrong to start introducing ad-hoc in-year reviews, as some people have suggested.
Focusing solely on the pay award also excludes the other reforms we have made to pay—reforms supported by the AFPRB itself. For example, in 2016 we introduced a new pay scheme, more effectively to reward personnel for their skills and simplify an individual’s pay journey. Consequently, people are better able to predict their future career earnings and make better-informed decisions.
At the same time, we recognise that, in an increasingly competitive world, we need to do more to plug skills gaps in parts of the public sector, such as engineering, if we are to continue delivering world-class public services. That is why the Government’s recent announcement that greater flexibility will be available in public sector pay remains key. It means the independent pay review bodies can now make their own judgements on future pay awards to mitigate any potential future impact. So, for 2018-19, the AFPRB will no longer have an across-the-board requirement to keep its recommendations within a total 1% maximum award. But let us not jump the gun. The 2018-19 armed forces pay review is still to come. It will be agreed as part of the budget process and we expect its recommendations early next year.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister is extensively quoting the AFPRB, but it is also clear that it says that
“if inflation continues its upward trajectory, we could foresee recruitment becoming more challenging and morale being adversely impacted... we would need to consider very carefully whether a one per cent average limit on base pay was compatible with continued operational effectiveness”.
He knows my concerns about the recruitment figures and that I accept that pay is not the only issue affecting recruitment and retention, but will we see those recruitment figures going up, and will he listen to what the AFPRB is clearly saying?

Mark Lancaster: Over the past year, we have seen 8,000 applications to the Army, which is an increase of some 20% on the previous year, but I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view. I was deeply surprised to discover while reading a national newspaper that part of Labour’s plan is to use the money for marketing—some £10 million a year—as one source of income to give soldiers a pay increase. We have approximately 150,000 armed forces personnel, so that would be an increase of about £5.50 a month per member of the armed forces, but it would involve scrapping the one thing that delivers recruiting—so no marketing budget for a bottom-fed organisation? Does he agree with that? Does he agree with the plan of his Front Benchers to scrap the marketing budget?

Stephen Doughty: Marketing is obviously a crucial part of the recruitment process, but the Minister needs to be clear. He has given me an answer that makes it clear that every single course—including those at Catterick in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who has just left—is under-recruited. Every single course at Sandhurst since 2015 has been under-recruited. It is his Government who are leading us to this recruitment crisis. Pay is one part of that, and a crucial part, but he is the Minister and he is in charge.

Mark Lancaster: So we have a crucial marketing budget. Would that be scrapped? I am going to Catterick in two weeks to be the passing-off officer for the latest group of Gurkhas to pass off. That is a fully recruited course; not all courses are, but I am delighted to say that the last Sandhurst course was also fully recruited.

Nia Griffith: rose—

Mark Lancaster: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must make progress.

Nia Griffith: As the Minister knows well, newspapers do not always report things the right way round. The point we are making about the marketing costs is that they have rocketed. The question is, what value for money are those costs providing? What value for money is the contract with Capita providing? What evaluation have the Government done of whether the money spent on Capita—spent on marketing—is providing value for money in view of the returns they are getting? That is what we want to see.

Mark Lancaster: I am not sure whether we have seen a U-turn in Labour party policy—[Interruption.] So we have not seen a U-turn. Would Labour still scrap the marketing budget? Can we have some clarity? Is Labour proposing to scrap the marketing budget or not?

Nia Griffith: The point that I was making is that there has been a massive increase in the marketing budget for zero returns in additional recruitment. That is the point—is it value for money? The Government are running the contract. They are employing Capita. They need to answer as to exactly what value they think they are getting out of Capita.

Mark Lancaster: I am going to do the House a favour and move on.
As alluded to earlier, for those joining our armed forces, pay is not the be all and end all. People sign up to challenge themselves, experience adventure and learn new skills. The most frequently cited reason for leaving, according to the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey is the impact of the service on family and personal life. That is why we are keen to do all we can to improve life for our personnel. Some 70% of our people told a recent MOD survey that they wanted more flexible working opportunities, so we are introducing a flexible working Bill. It will enable regular service personnel temporarily to change the nature of their service, enabling part-time working or protection from deployment to support an individual’s personal circumstances “where business need allows”.

Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Lancaster: I will in a minute, but only once more because others want to speak in this short debate.
At present, a woman considering starting a family, or an individual with caring commitments, faces a difficult choice over leaving when their circumstances change. We do not want to lose good people with knowledge, skills and experience from a more diverse workforce, and we should not have to.
By providing a more modern and flexible employment framework for our people, we will help to improve morale, retain and recruit the very best and increase the overall effectiveness of the armed forces. More than that, we will also help to attract recruits from a wider cross-section of society—those who might otherwise not have considered a military career.
Pay and flexible working, in and of themselves, do not offer a silver bullet to address the issues of recruitment and retention, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford in his excellent report “Filling the Ranks”, but taken together with our broader people programme, we believe that it will have a significant impact.

Gareth Thomas: rose—

Mark Lancaster: I will give way for the last time, to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who asked first.

Ruth Smeeth: I thank the Minister. Many colleagues have mentioned the overall package, but may we go back to service family accommodation? I shall be talking about pay later, but the reality is that SFA and the CarillionAmey contract are the No. 1 issue, in addition to pay, that is raised with us every day. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I think that SFA is becoming a headache for everybody and needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. In my previous role, I spent a lot of time with CarillionAmey. I took the chief executive on a walk around Woolwich to see the standard of some of the accommodation. I think that there is acknowledgment across the House that the situation has improved, but there is still an awful lot more work to do. We recognise that and are determined, as were the previous Government, to address this issue. Of course the better defence estate strategy is part of the key to that. As we begin to consolidate our barracks, we will have less mobility of our armed forces; we will be able to dispose of some sites and all that money will be reinvested.

Johnny Mercer: rose—

Gareth Thomas: rose—

I will give way one more time, to my hon. Friend, and then I will conclude.

Johnny Mercer: I really welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), my colleague on the Defence Committee, because this whole debate comes down to credibility. Yes, we would always want more money; people will always want to be paid, but that is not the No. 1 issue. Generally, we have a good offer for our servicemen and women. We have deep challenges with accommodation, veterans’ care  and mental health, but this has to be a credible debate, and it is simply not the case that our men and women have a raw deal on pay and experience.

Mark Lancaster: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.
It is worth being clear about what this programme entails. It will see us offering greater help to personnel, so that they can live in private accommodation and meet their aspirations for home ownership. It will see us develop a new employment offer for new joiners to the service from 2020, better meeting the expectations of future recruits and targeting resources on the people we need most.

Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Lancaster: No: I have been very generous.
The programme will also make it easier for people to move between the public and private sectors during their careers—retaining and making the most of their skills in areas where they are most needed.
Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford outlined, there is still more to do, whether recruiting more people from ethnic minority communities, improving accommodation or making sure that all our people are fit mentally as well as physically; but we are now hard at work developing an action plan to take forward his recommendations, including a planned medical symposium.
Our people will always be our greatest asset. As a Minister and a reservist, I have nothing but respect and admiration for achievements of our armed forces personnel. Of course I appreciate the impact that pay restraint has had, but I also believe we are taking a balanced approach. On the one hand, we are ensuring pay discipline, which is critical to the future affordability of public services and the sustainability of public sector employment. On the other hand, we are doing our utmost to make sure that our overall package not only reflects the value that our people bring to our country but retains the flexibility so vital in attracting the best and the brightest.
Armed forces pay structures and levels are regularly reviewed, and I look forward to hearing the AFPRB’s latest recommendations. In the meantime, I am personally committed to doing everything I can to make sure that our exceptionally talented and hard-working men and women continue to receive the recognition that is their due.

Stewart McDonald: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing the motion before the House.
In the short time that I have been the defence spokesperson for my party, it has become abundantly clear that the Secretary of State—who, unfortunately, is leaving us at this moment—is not so much running a Department as presiding over a shambles with, I believe, the fourth-biggest spend in Whitehall. You have to hand it to Ministers, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it takes some brass neck to come to this House time and time again and seek to portray this team as in command of its ship, when the reality is that when you lift that thin veil, the chaos and the haemorrhaging of money is  there for all to see, and it is like nothing I have seen in the two and a half years that I have been a Member of this House.
On the issue of pay and the broader issue of terms and conditions, I wish to bring the House’s attention to a piece of work that will be led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—a commission set up by my party to review what offer we think should be made to members of the armed forces. That will look in detail at the issues of pay, pensions, a trade union or representative body—which was mentioned today and in a previous debate this week—and, of course, housing and homes for veterans and their families.
On the pay cap, it should be noted that the Scottish Government were the first Government anywhere in the UK to commit to lifting the 1% pay cap right across the public sector. We believe that it is the very least that workers in uniform—be they nurses, police officers or those who protect us in the armed services—truly deserve. The pay freeze—which, as has been mentioned, is in reality a cut to their wages—is one of the many, many components making up the crisis in recruitment and in retention. Inflation has pushed the cost of living up for everyone, meaning that their take-home salary is being stretched like never before. For too many, there is too much month at the end of their money.
Let me just adumbrate for Ministers, with inflation sitting at 3%, what that means. If your base pay is £21,000 you receive £21,210 after your 1% rise. When you account for inflation, Madam Deputy Speaker, it leads to a real wage loss of £420. So how Ministers and Government Back Benchers can come to this House and participate in the inevitable crescendo of backslapping and chest-thumping, claiming to be the party that backs the armed forces—no doubt we have a couple of hours of that to go—is beyond me. I would be embarrassed to defend this Government’s record on armed forces pay.
Having outlined—[Interruption.] I shall come to the nuclear deterrent; I am glad that the Whip, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), mentions it from a sedentary position. Having outlined, as many speakers no doubt will, the bravery and sacrifice that those in our armed forces display, and what they are asked to live with, it would take some nerve to do anything other than support the Opposition motion and offer my party’s support for it. But there is a deeper, more fundamental issue that we cannot ignore, and that is how this Government and previous Governments have chosen to spend money defending the nation, which brings me to the Government Whip’s point.
There are certainly many arguments against Trident, and I have had very honest disagreement with those who support Trident. The cost is certainly one argument against it. The drain that the cost puts on our ability to defend ourselves is, I believe, unsustainable, and more and more people in the defence community are realising that.
Let us put that cost in context. The Government’s own figure for Trident is £31 billion, so if we take a starter Army officer’s salary of £26,000, it equates to over 1,100,000 new staff officers. Clearly we do not need that many, but when the picture is laid out in those terms, against a backdrop of a recruitment crisis, broken manifesto pledges on the size of the army, and forces numbers at their lowest since King George III was on the throne—since Arthur Onslow was the Speaker of the House of Commons—it puts the draining cost of  Trident on our conventional capabilities into some perspective. And that is before we even get to the £100 million of efficiency savings that commanders have been asked to make in addition to cuts to already threadbare budgets for training, for maintenance, for accommodation and for travel.
I want to return to those numbers: 82,000 was the commitment made by the Conservatives in their manifesto. It was their pledge, not mine, and it was not one number—

Mark Francois: Before the hon. Gentleman completely leaves Trident behind, is he aware that the Defence Committee recently took evidence from a group of senior academics who told us that it would be wrong to assume now that North Korea is incapable of reaching the United Kingdom with a thermonuclear warhead? In other words, they think that the North Koreans are already there, or extremely close to it. Given the unstable nature of the North Korean regime, is not that a very strong argument for retaining our own independent nuclear deterrent to deter whatever those in Pyongyang might think?

Stewart McDonald: No, because it is obviously not deterring anyone, given what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

Martin Docherty: Perhaps I can offer some information about deterrence. Some of the real, tangible threats that we face, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been faced by people such as my brother, who is a reservist, so not even a regular member of the armed forces—some Members of the House know him. Investing in the people at the frontline is more important than Trident, which is sitting in Faslane and doing nothing but gathering dust.

Stewart McDonald: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am trying to resist having a debate on Trident and to stick to the issue at hand. Of course the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) can quote academics who are in favour of Trident, just as Members on my side of the debate can quote academics who are against it. We would be more than happy to debate another motion on that.
The Conservative party’s manifesto set out a commitment to 82,000 for the size of the Army, and not one number below that. We know that the Government have failed to meet that commitment, as the number has fallen to 78,010, which is a shortfall of 3,990 fully trained troops. As if that was not bad enough, just five months ago, when pressed on the numbers at the Royal United Services Institute’s land warfare conference, the Secretary of State had nothing to offer in response but obfuscation, which is deeply concerning when we consider how that prejudices our ability to field a short-notice, war-fighting division of 40,000 troops, which is seen as absolutely critical by our allies.
On recruitment, the Government clearly do not see the issue with their reputation as an employer. They have increased spending on advertising by 50%, yet the numbers keep sinking.

Mike Penning: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, and I praise the work that his hon. Friend’s brother does in the  Army Reserve. We are one Army and all the same, whether reservists or full-time regulars. That is how it was when I served and how it always should be. One area where we are desperately short and struggling to recruit is the Scottish infantry regiments, which is unusual. Has he any idea why people in Scotland do not want to join the infantry? Might it be that they are frightened they would be dragged out of the British Army and into an independent Scottish Army?

Stewart McDonald: I am up for a debate on Trident or independence. I do have some respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him for his service. I recall him appearing before the Transport Committee when he was a Minister, so I know that he is a thoughtful Member of the House. To answer his question bluntly, no, the threat of independence is not what is putting off potential recruits. If he stays for the rest of the debate and listens to what other Members have to say, he will realise that there are serious things that are putting people off. I say that not because I want to have a bun fight across the Chamber, but because we want to see that sorted. Even if Scotland became independent tomorrow, it would still be in our interests for England to have a strong Army. I am not interested in having a constitutional bun fight, but I will allow him to intervene again.

Mike Penning: That is not my intention either. I was the Armed Forces Minister before my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) took over the role—he is doing a fantastic job, because he has much more experience in the Army than I ever had. The point I was trying to make is that the English regiments have always been augmented by Scottish troops, particularly in the infantry—the corps are full of Scots and Welsh, but particularly Scots—but now the Scottish infantry regiments will be augmented by English recruits. I have no problem with that, but it is interesting, and it is not just about pay; it is very often about the package. I will stay for the debate and I will speak, probably for about seven minutes.

Stewart McDonald: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I look forward, as always, to hearing his contribution. To be fair to Members on the Opposition Benches, I do not think that anyone has said that this is just about pay. In fact, we had a very thorough debate earlier this week on flexible working, when many other issues were also addressed. I see that his colleague, the hon. Member for Burton, is nodding in agreement. [Interruption.] I understand what the motion is about. He is shouting from a sedentary position, but if he allows me to make a little more progress, perhaps he will hear what else I have to say on what might be stopping Scottish people joining the armed forces.
Colonel Kemp, who took command of UK forces in Afghanistan in 2003, has criticised the Government’s reliance on outsourcing with Capita, which in 2012 took over regular and reservist Army recruitment in a contract valued at around £44 million over 10 years. That seemed to cause a bit of a bun fight across the two Front Benches. I ask Government Members, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Burton, who seems determined to shout me down at every turn,  why will they not heed the advice of a report part-authored by one of their own colleagues, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, which recommended in July this year that the Government should accelerate work on an alternative to the Capita contract? That thoughtful recommendation, which we support, was set out in a report part-authored by a Government Member.
I want briefly to mention pensions, because that is another area. I note that the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has now left the Chamber, having asked me to talk about other areas, which is a shame. It is well known that the Ministry of Defence is working on a new joiners offer, which I would like to hear more about. On pensions, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the Ministry is working on new joiners offer arrangements. If so, how does that square with the promise, given a few years ago, that pension arrangements were safe for 25 years? Will any new scheme apply only to those joining after a particular date, or will the cut be retrospectively applied to those currently serving?

Mark Lancaster: The clue is in the title. It is called a new joiners offer.

Stewart McDonald: I am glad that the Minister has cleared that up for me.

Martin Docherty: There is clearly a lack of consensus across the House, at least between the Government Benches and these Benches. Would the armed forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not be better served by consensus, as we see in countries such as Denmark, where there is trade union representation for members of the armed forces, and where pay, housing and health are part of a consensual approach, and not just by Government but by those serving, through their trade union membership?

Stewart McDonald: My hon. Friend makes a thoughtful point, and I noted Government Members shaking their heads in disagreement. In the Netherlands they have not just one trade union, but four. I do not see what the Government would have to fear from a trade union, or certainly from a body similar to the Police Federation, which could stand up for members of the armed forces when discussing these matters.
In conclusion, when all these issues are considered in the round, added to the huge number of issues faced by armed forces and veterans families, I hope that the chest thumping and backslapping that we normally see in such debates will give way to something of a lento and a decrescendo, so that a sober reflection is what drives Members in their contributions and voting this afternoon. The Ministry of Defence must urgently bring back some decency and honour to the way it treats our armed forces and veterans communities.
Defence—proper defence—cannot be bought on the cheap. That is as true of equipment and platforms as it is of the people we ask to defend us every single day. A career in the forces should be something not only that people are proud to pursue, but that the Government can offer with pride, but they cannot do so seriously if they continue to preside over wage cuts for those who protect us every day.

Mark Francois: This morning, along with 20 other MPs and peers, I attended a brief act of remembrance at the Guard’s Chapel in Wellington barracks, where we paid our respects to the fallen. I think that it is an underappreciated fact that over 30 Members of this House have themselves served in the armed forces, in either the regulars or the reserves, including myself, the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). Another of those people is my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, who served in the Royal Naval Reserve and who was present this morning. However, he has asked me to offer his apologies to the House because he had two unbreakable commitments this afternoon and therefore could not, as he usually would do, contribute to this debate.
Our armed forces are currently under pressure. As of May 2017, the total strength of the regular armed forces was 138,350, some 5% below their establishment strength, and the shortages are far worse in specialised trades. In the year to April 2017, over 2,000 more people left the regular armed forces than joined.
As I argued in the House recently, a combination of lower retention than expected and failure to achieve recruiting targets means the under-manning in the armed forces is worsening. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are now running at around 10% below their annual recruiting target, while for the Army the shortfall is, unfortunately, over 30%.
This continuing process of “hollowing out” in the ranks also threatens to compound the problem by increasing the pressure on those personnel who remain. In order to address these problems, the Ministry of Defence needs to improve its recruiting performance, particularly among black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel and female personnel. The MOD has a target, set by the Minister for the Armed Forces, for 15% of all recruits to be female by 2020. In the year to 31 March 2017, female personnel represented 10.2% of the regular armed forces, while the proportion for the reserves was somewhat higher, at 14%.
The RAF, which for some time has had a programme devoted to nurturing female talent, has three female officers of two-star rank, and there is one female officer of two-star rank in the Army, but, unfortunately, there is none in the Royal Navy.

Ruth Smeeth: As the right hon. Gentleman had to correct me on Monday to inform me of the position, may I ask whether he agrees that we hope that, at some point, the senior service, the Royal Navy, will catch up with everybody else and ensure that we have a female leading officer sooner rather than later?

Mark Francois: Yes, I would like one day to see our new aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth, which is named after our wonderful Queen, captained by a woman.
The MOD has been able to make much of female representation in media terms in order to show the career progression that is possible for female officers, but clearly it would be desirable to see female candidates reaching three-star rank or above in the relatively near future. The independent service complaints ombudsman  has three-star rank, but she is independent of the armed forces. In addition, as a ministerial example, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) was, I believe, the first female Minister of State for the Armed Forces in history; she held the post from 2015 to 2016.
The MOD is now also introducing women in ground close combat, meaning that in future women will be allowed to serve in the Royal Marines, the infantry and the RAF Regiment. Places will be made available to female candidates who can pass the requisite physical standards, which will be maintained as the same as for their male counterparts; that is important in maintaining confidence in the process. In addition, women will be allowed to apply for posts in the special forces, again entirely on merit, thus clearly demonstrating there are no longer any areas of the armed forces that are off-limits to female personnel.
The RAF Regiment was opened up to suitably qualified female candidates this September, and women will be able to take places in the Royal Armoured Corps and the infantry in 2018. It will take some time for the absolute number of women in ground close combat to build, but the opportunity should be used at an early stage, with exemplars, to demonstrate unequivocally that there are no longer any restrictions of opportunity for women serving in the armed forces.
The flexible engagement system, which we debated in the House on Monday evening and to which several Members have already referred, will positively affect the ability to attract and retain a diverse workforce. FES is designed to allow individuals to decide on their level of commitment, including opportunities for work in full-time and part-time capacities, with the current barriers between regular and reserves being reduced. That flexibility should be particularly helpful in assisting women to enjoy full careers in the armed forces over a period of time, while reducing concerns female recruits may have about the longevity and potential progression of their careers.
Overall, female recruitment—including representation at senior level—is starting to show real success, and this is one area where the Ministry of Defence can afford to be more ambitious. The 15% recruitment target by 2020 seems likely to be met and the Royal Air Force is already intending to raise its target to 20% by 2020. If the Department wants to continue the momentum that is currently being developed in this area across the three services, I believe it should set a new stretch goal of 20% of recruits being female by 2025. In addition, maximum publicity should be given to the introduction of women in ground close combat, to highlight that all areas of the armed forces are now open to female talent.

Gareth Thomas: Two years ago, the Government set up an armed forces credit union to help armed forces personnel on low pay who might be vulnerable to payday loan companies charging very high rates of interest. Two years on, the three armed forces credit unions are well-established, but could do with the MOD taking steps to advertise their services more widely. Given that 15 years ago the right hon. Gentleman showed a brief interest in co-operatives, may I encourage him to join me in encouraging the Minister to think through what else the MOD might do now to encourage awareness of that armed forces credit union among military personnel?

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman’s researcher has clearly been on the ball. I know that in the United States service credit unions are far more advanced than here; there is a big movement in America. I for one would ask Ministers to look munificently on the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Mark Lancaster: rose—

Mark Francois: Indeed, I think the Minister wants to intervene.

Mark Lancaster: I am now feeling guilty for not giving way to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). He makes a very reasonable point. I am very pleased with the progress we have made with the credit unions, but there is always more we can do. I will look into this point, and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Francois: We appear to have got some consensus there.
In July 2013 the Government published a White Paper entitled “The Reserves in the Future Force 2020: valuable and valued”, which envisaged an ambitious revival and expansion of Britain’s reserve forces, under the heading of Future Reserves 2020, or FR2020. The roll-out of that programme was initially complicated by a combination of excessive bureaucracy, delays to medicals for recruits and IT problems.
In response, the three services—in particular the Army, where the greatest problem lay—committed additional resources to reinforce the recruiting effort, and now, several years on, that has borne fruit. As of May 2017, the trained strength of the Army reserve is 26,730 as against a target of 26,700; the maritime reserves, including the Royal Marine Reserve, stood at 2,590 against a target of 2,320; and the figures for the RAF reserves, including the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, were 2,140 against a target of 1,860.
Reserve recruiting now enjoys support from across British industry, including the Business Services Association, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors, and is an important part of the armed forces covenant. In addition, considerable success has been achieved by offering “recruitment bonuses” to ex-regulars who have left the services but have then joined their reserve counterparts.
There is no room for complacency. That has only been achieved with considerable investment, of both money and effort, by the regular as well as the reserve forces. If the targets in FR2020 are to be met, it is vital that this earmarked funding is continued and not sacrificed to in-year savings, which would run the risk of seriously compromising the momentum achieved to date. Overall, however, the reserves story is now becoming a successful one, and is far healthier than it was only a few years ago.
An important aspect of the overall quality of life in the services is represented by service accommodation, and this is where the Ministry of Defence must do better if it wishes to retain the support of service personnel and, particularly, of their families. Remember the saying: “Recruit the serviceman, retain the family.” The UK tri-service families continuous attitudes survey, published in July 2017, shows that the level of satisfaction with the maintenance of service families’ accommodation remains low following a large decrease in 2016. In particular—this follows on from the point made by the  hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth)—there are issues surrounding the delays in the MOD’s housing contractor, CarillionAmey, responding to requests for maintenance and also with the quality of the maintenance and repair work subsequently undertaken. Only 34% of those surveyed said that they were satisfied with the responsiveness of the contractor and only 29% were satisfied with the quality of maintenance or repair work that it undertook.

Ruth Smeeth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with that contract is the existing key performance indicators? The contractor gets a big tick for turning up within 24 hours, but that does not mean that the boiler has been fixed. That could take another eight days. The letter of the contract might be being fulfilled, but it is definitely not being fulfilled in spirit.

Mark Francois: The hon. Lady anticipates what I am about to say. I will come on to boilers in just a minute. Her point about acting to the spirit of the contract is well made, and I agree with her.
The FCAS report states:
“Satisfaction with most aspects of SFA fell markedly in 2016 due in part to underperformance by the National Housing prime contractor and changes to the SFA charging method in April 2016.”
Similarly, the Army Families Federation—sometimes affectionately referred to as the Army freedom fighters—reports that housing continues to be the biggest concern for Army families. There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence about the poor performance of CarillionAmey and, put simply, we are not honouring our people by providing them with this shoddy service. We send a serviceman halfway around the world to fight for their country and we call them a hero, as that is what they are, but back at home their wife spends weeks trying to get their boiler fixed because of the startling ineptitude of the people we have hired to keep their home warm. And then we wonder why people leave.
This has gone on for too long, and it is simply unacceptable. Either CarillionAmey should materially raise its game on behalf of our service personnel or it should be unceremoniously sacked and we should find someone competent to do the work instead. Housing associations and registered social landlords around the country have been carrying out basic maintenance and repairs as bread-and-butter work for years, so why cannot CarillionAmey do the same?
There are a variety of reasons why people are leaving the armed forces at present, and pay is one factor but—as has already been pointed out—not the predominant one. As the Minister rightly said, the armed forces continuous attitude survey published in May 2017 points out that the primary reason for people wanting to leave the services is the effect of separation or long hours on their family life. That is the greatest challenge that Ministers have to grapple with. The Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill, which we debated in this House on Monday, should help in this regard, as it will allow service personnel to vary their commitment, rather than face an acid test of only being able to leave the services in order to reduce the pressure on their family. In other words, it might persuade some personnel to stick rather than twist when their family are under pressure because of their commitment to their country.
The issue of pay itself has now become something of a challenge, particularly in relation to retention. The AFCAS notes that only 33% of personnel are satisfied with their basic rate of pay, and that only 27% are satisfied with their pension benefits, although it should be pointed out that the armed forces have one of the few remaining pension schemes anywhere in the public sector where employees do not have to pay a contribution of their own—something that I know MOD Ministers have fought valiantly to defend.
Recommendations on pay are made by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and its recommendation in January 2017 was essentially for a 1% pay increase, although certain personnel would qualify for additional increments and also for specialist recruitment and retention pay, particularly if they serve in areas where the armed forces are struggling to retain specialists. Any further pay increase for the armed forces will be subject to the next recommendation of the AFPRB early next year, so we will have to wait and see what it recommends. It is likely that any increase above 1% would need to come out of the Defence budget, which could have implications for some elements of the equipment programme, for instance. However, given that the police have now had an above 1% pay increase, if the AFPRB were to recommend something similar next year, I think that Ministers would have to take it seriously.

Wayne David: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that it would be quite wrong if the MOD implemented more cuts to equipment to finance a pay increase?

Mark Francois: I cannot say what the AFPRB is going to recommend. In fairness, we will have to allow it to go through its deliberations and see what it concludes. However, given that the police have been given an increase above 1%, I am sure that there will be strong views in the armed forces about what should happen to them. But let us await the recommendation of the AFPRB.
In conclusion, our armed forces, on whom we rely so much, continue to be under pressure in the fields of recruitment and retention. Although the principal reason for people leaving the armed forces is pressure on family life, pay also appears to be entering into the equation, and I think that Ministers in the Department are cognisant of that. We must also do something about the poor quality of repairs and maintenance of service accommodation. I urge the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon to formally review the performance of CarillionAmey and to be prepared, if necessary, to re-let the contract unless the company succeeds in materially raising its game. We have to continue to attract the brightest and the best to serve us in uniform, and we must continue to provide the resources to make that prospect a reality. We also need to ensure that those people have homes that are fit to live in.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people want to take part in this important debate and that there is limited time. I am therefore putting on a formal time limit of seven minutes, which is likely to be reduced later if there are a great many interventions in everyone’s speeches. To speak without hesitation now is Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: The Government are nothing if not consistent, as Conservative Governments have been throughout history, in that in opposition they call for more expenditure on the armed forces and argue that they are proud supporters of the armed forces, but when they get into power the first thing they do is cut the defence budget and show no respect for the men and women of the armed forces in terms of their pay and conditions. We have heard some remarkable things today. Conservative Back Benchers—including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who must have quite a few members of the armed forces in his constituency—have been suggesting that pay is not important. Well, I am sure that will be news to those members of the armed forces, when they get that message.

Johnny Mercer: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that what I was trying to say—and what I did say—was that pay was not the No. 1 issue for service. It would be disingenuous to suggest that it was. There are a number of reasons why people serve, and a great experience is on offer to the people of this country who serve. Pay is important, but it is not as important as this debate suggests.

Kevan Jones: I find that remarkable. The hon. Gentleman is letting down his constituents by not supporting what we are arguing for, which is a fair deal on pay for the members of our armed forces. If I were in his shoes, I would be making sure that I did.
The last Labour Government, during which I served in the Ministry of Defence, had a proud record of accepting the recommendations of the pay review body every single year. For example, the increase was 3.7% in 2001 and 2002 and 3.2% in 2003, and that goes right up to 2010, when the increase was 2%. However, this Government have put in an artificial cap, completely ignoring the pay review body, and it was remarkable to hear the Minister say that that does not matter because people are receiving increments. I am sorry—this may be the trade union official in me coming out here—but where someone starts affects where they end up. A 2% incremental increase may mean an increase in pay, but a 2% increase on the basic level of pay is a damn sight bigger, and we need to recognise that.
Something else that cannot be forgotten is this idea that armed forces pensions are, as I think someone said, gold plated and generous. However, people do not recognise that that is taken into account by the pay review body. I also want to remind the Conservatives that if I had sacked armed forces personnel or made them compulsorily redundant weeks away from their retirement date when I was in charge, I would have been rightly condemned. That is just another example of a Conservative Government saying one thing, but doing another. Making people compulsorily redundant is astounding.
As for the independence of the pay review body, it is clear that the Government have completely ignored its recommendation, but things are even worse than that. The previous Prime Minister David Cameron sacked the head of independent pay review body in 2013 because he did not like what it said about the X factor and pay increases. The Government have not just ignored the  pay review body; they have interfered in the independent process. Conservative Members may say that pay is not important, but I am yet to meet anyone in life who does not think that getting a decent reward for their efforts is important to them.
Alongside that, we have seen declining morale. One of the Conservative Government’s betrayals is that they say, “We stand up for the armed forces.” Well, the armed forces stood at 191,710 personnel in 2010, but that is now down to 149,366. The situation is worse than that, however, because there are artificial caps on numbers in the individual services, including the Navy, which is leading to real deployability problems. Ships are not sailing because they do not have the crews. As I said, the Conservatives say that they stand up for the armed forces, but if they genuinely want to do that, pay people accordingly and recognise the efforts and sacrifices that individuals make on our behalf. Empty words are fine, but actions in government are different. I am proud that the Labour party—not just in the last Labour Government, but throughout its history—has always stood up for our armed forces by supporting personnel and by ensuring that our country is defended.

Robert Courts: That last Labour Government, for which he presumably has some responsibility, left a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. By contrast, this Government are increasing defence spending. Does he accept that he has some responsibility for that and that the Conservatives stand up for the armed forces?

Kevan Jones: I thought the Cameron Kool-Aid had been dispensed with. That figure was plucked out of thin air. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman look at the 2010 National Audit Office report that says that there would be a £6 billion so-called black hole over the next 10 years. The Conservatives dishonestly tried to give the impression that there was a £38 billion black hole to be met in 2010. Both the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), his predecessor as Defence Secretary and now Chancellor, miraculously got rid of that black hole within 18 months and said that it had been plugged—do not ask me how they did it. If they could get rid of a £38 billion black hole in less than 18 months, they are in the wrong job. That was complete nonsense. The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) should stop repeating things that are just not true. I give the Conservatives credit for their great job of changing the narrative at the time, but the actual facts are different.

Robert Courts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: No, because I am about to finish. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the black hole that exists in the current Government’s procurement plan. I am not suggesting that it is an in-year black hole; this is about the 10-year equipment plan. The hon. Gentleman may want to look at that, the NAO report and the excellent report out today on how the Government are cannibalising equipment. Please look at the details.
I will finish with a non-partisan point. Everyone across the House recognises the dedication and service of the members of our armed forces, and they deserve  that recognition. In just over a week’s time, we will remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and there is a consensus across the House of support for our armed forces, but if we are to support and recognise the sacrifices they make, they need to be paid and resourced at an acceptable level.

Andrew Bowie: In about two weeks’ time, millions of people around this country and around the Commonwealth will pause for various public, private, simple and not-so-simple acts of remembrance to remember those who, in the words of the Kohima epitaph, gave their today for our tomorrow. For example, my great-uncle Samuel Coyle fell aged 19 at Gallipoli in 1915 and now lies alongside 600 other British and Commonwealth soldiers at the Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey.
Over the past 12 years or so, I have been lucky enough to have attended many moving remembrance services. In 2008, I was just along the road at the Cenotaph as part of the team that organised the 90th anniversary commemoration of the end of the great war. As a young sub-lieutenant fresh out of Dartmouth, it was incredibly humbling to meet Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone—the three remaining veterans from that incredible generation who endured so much. In 2015, I stood, with colleagues from the European Parliament, in Loos in northern France, taking part in a simple but solemn act of remembrance with the local mayor and townspeople as a grey dawn broke across the row upon row of gleaming white headstones, illuminating some 20,000 names of officers and men who fell in that one battle—600 of whom were from the Gordon Highlanders from the north-east of Scotland.
However, the place I think of more than any other at this time is the San Carlos cemetery in the Falkland Islands. I was there in 2007 as young midshipman on my first deployment. It was 17 June and we were commemorating the 25th anniversary of the conflict. Standing there in near sub-zero temperatures, with freezing rain swirling around—I remember it well—I was surrounded by veterans of that war, including Paras, Marines and Welsh Guardsmen, who less than a quarter of a century before had been storming through the freezing waves and upwards on to the rough terrain. Along with islanders who had lived through the terrifying invasion, we stood shoulder to shoulder with the sailors of HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope. Standing there, thousands of miles from the UK, brought home for the first time how much we truly owe to those who were and still are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend us, our country and our way of life.

Liz Saville-Roberts: This debate is about pay and retention, but Government funding and the duty of care towards armed forces veterans is another issue. The planned cessation of residential services at the Audley Court combat stress facility means that many Welsh veterans suffering from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder will no longer have access to residential care. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in pressing the Government to ensure that veterans have access to the sort of care that they may need in the future.

Andrew Bowie: I would be happy to join the hon. Lady in demanding that veterans are given the due care and attention they deserve, having given so much for this country.
To enable people to do their job effectively in our name, it is essential that our armed forces are properly funded and resourced and that they have the tools to do the job. I am sure that the old adage that the three enemies of the Royal Navy are, in reverse order, the enemy of the day, the French and Whitehall is one that still finds sympathy in many mess decks and wardrooms around the fleet, but the fact is that the Government remain steadfast in their support for the armed services.
That support has been shown not just in words but in action. In that regard, the Government cannot be accused of being found wanting. The defence budget will increase by £1 billion a year until at least 2021, ensuring that we remain the country with the second highest defence budget in NATO, the largest defence budget in the EU and the fifth largest defence budget in the world. Seven ships and submarines are in build right now in UK yards. Some £178 billion is being spent on equipment for all three armed services, including the new aircraft carriers, 50 upgraded Apache helicopters and nine Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft. The Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill will, of course, bring our armed forces into line with modern working practices and will make them more adaptable to the demands of 21st-century life.
Those are the actions of a Government committed to our national security and to the serving members of our armed forces. But, of course, it is right that we debate the pay of personnel currently serving on land, at sea and in the air. When this Government came into office, tough decisions had to be taken to attempt to strike a balance between
“the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people”
and maintaining comparable pay to the civilian sector. That is why the Government took the tough decision to budget for a 1% pay rise across the public sector, including the armed forces. This year, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommended a 1% pay increase.
However, it is right that in this place we hear the concerns of those who think that the 1% pay cap could be a factor in recruitment and retention, and I am persuaded that greater flexibility on pay rates could be required in order to ensure that our armed forces have the personnel to continue operating at such a high level. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), I do not recognise such flexibility as a priority on the long list of things that my friends who still serve complain about daily.

Robert Courts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach to this debate carries the danger that it becomes very simplistic? Evidence tends to suggest that other issues, such as accommodation—the RAF housing at Carterton in my constituency very much needs attention—and the effect on family life, are more important than pay alone.

Andrew Bowie: I could not agree any more with my hon. Friend. Accommodation is at the top of the very long list that friends of mine remind me of on a daily basis.
I welcome the Treasury’s announcement in September of greater flexibility on pay across the public sector next year, and I look forward to seeing the next recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
The Government value our armed forces personnel. As I have said, we owe our armed forces personnel and all who served before them an immense debt. The Government’s actions in investing record amounts in equipment, in raising our defence budget in real terms, in introducing the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill and in signalling their desire for more flexibility on public sector pay across the board are the actions of a Government committed to the defence of this country.

Stephen Lloyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about how the Government support the armed forces so wholeheartedly. How would he respond to the very recent surveys showing a consistent drop in morale, consistent anxieties about the level of pay and consistent concerns about the direction of travel?

Andrew Bowie: The hon. Gentleman raises some pertinent points but, as has already been said, there are various reasons for people leaving or not joining the armed forces, and pay—which is what we are debating this afternoon—is not the sole reason for the drop in morale.
The actions of this Government are those of a Government who are committed to the defence of this country and to those men and women who join our armed forces to do just that.

Ruth Smeeth: I begin by paying tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate. They have spoken with insight and conviction on the importance of ensuring fair pay for our armed forces personnel, not just as a point of principle but as an essential guarantee for our future recruitment and retention across all three services, which in turn ensures that we will have the right people in the right place and in the right numbers to keep us safe.
We speak here today because our armed forces and their families make daily sacrifices to protect us, so it is only right and proper that we do our duty and look after them. I am therefore delighted that today’s motion, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), directly mirrors an early-day motion I tabled earlier this year on the need for enhanced salary levels for our armed forces personnel.
I am privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, and it is because of that role that I wish to contribute today. At a time when we, and our allies, face renewed threats from a resurgent Russian Federation, when the global order is facing unprecedented realignment and when we see global terror attacks on the news bulletins on a weekly basis, not least the horrendous scenes in Manhattan last night, we find ourselves with a Government who seem to be missing the point. It is our service personnel who keep us safe, and we need to ensure that their overall terms and conditions are good enough to recruit and retain in post.
Let us be clear about the current challenge. As other hon. Members have said, we find ourselves facing a personnel deficit of 5%, with stories of declining morale and faltering recruitment targets, and with no fewer than 38 operational pinch points across the three services—gaps that threaten to have a detrimental impact on our planned and contingent operations. We need to ask ourselves, why?
We expect our armed forces personnel to do the extraordinary every day. It is challenging and, all too often, life-threatening work. We ask them to make incredible sacrifices and to cope with intense physical, mental and emotional challenges in the line of duty. From engineers to infantry soldiers, bomb disposal experts to intelligence officers, logisticians to caterers, pilots to submariners, all our armed forces personnel, at whatever grade and in whatever role, are exceptionally skilled and dedicated men and women.
Our armed forces personnel do not do the job for the money, and we should be in no doubt that people of their calibre may well be able to earn more in other fields, but they do need to pay their bills, as we all do. They deserve recognition, including financial recognition, for their service. It is unacceptable that anyone who makes sacrifices to keep us all safe should struggle to support their family. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group, servicemen and women and, as importantly, their families tell me that they are struggling. The House needs to recognise that we have a problem when they are earning less in real terms than they were seven years ago.
The pay cap has meant real hardship for many in service, and it is undoubtedly one obstacle to recruitment and, more so, to retention. Not only that, the pay cap is symbolic of how much—or should I say how little?—the men and women of our armed forces mean to the country they serve. The cap’s removal would be symbolic, too.
I welcome that the Government are now back-pedalling on the continuation of the 1% pay cap for armed forces personnel. Their recognition that the men and women of our armed forces deserve better than they have been subjected to for these past seven years can only be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, but I am sure I speak for many on both sides when I ask the Minister, what took so long?
My fear, however, is not just the pay cap, which many others have raised today. We need to look at the terms and conditions of our service personnel in the round. Too many servicemen and women have contacted me with concerns about potential cuts to their tour allowances and bonuses for me not to be worried that the Government are planning to rob Peter to pay Paul to fund pay rises. This may all prove to be smoke and mirrors, and our proud servicemen and women might end up no better off next year because they lose the X factor, the tour bonuses from Iraq or other things.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the pay cut over the past seven years will have an ongoing effect throughout these individuals’ lives, as it will affect their final pension?

Ruth Smeeth: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Let us be clear about realities: where someone’s  base salary is not increased, their pension, which is based on that salary, is also affected. So this affects everybody.
That brings me on to my next point. No trade union can advocate for our armed forces and no staff association can stand up to the Government for them. It is therefore down to us in this House to ensure that they are well paid and to fight their corner, because no one else is going to do it for them. They follow orders—that is what we pay them to do and train them to do. Therefore, they are never going to challenge us. So while they do their duty protecting our national security, at home and abroad, we must do our duty and look after them and their families. Next week, we have Remembrance Sunday and although our servicemen and women do not consider themselves heroes, we should. Heroes do not want handouts—they just want a fair deal. It is the very least they deserve.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Given the number of speakers, I am going to have reduce the time limit to five minutes. I just remind hon. Members that interventions do take away from the time available to others.

Mike Penning: Let me say from the outset, as a former young soldier who joined the Army in 1974, that pay is important—it is what sometimes makes the job worth while—but it was not the reason I joined, and it is not the reason why most people stay in the armed forces. They stay in for myriad reasons and we must be conscious of the fact that, even though pay is not the most important thing, we must not take them for granted. I think that across the House we would agree with that today. There would be no argument that pay is important, but I can honestly say that pay was not in the top 10 in the leavers surveys that used to sit on my desk when I was Minister for the Armed Forces.
If Her Majesty’s Opposition do not get copies, I ask the Minister to allow them to see those surveys. These people are leaving, so they have no reason to lie or to try to get some favour from their units. Lots of other things aside from pay were in these surveys—it was not right up there. Where they were going to go during their career was one such thing—people always had aspirations. Even young guardsmen like me, who knew they would not get past acting corporal, had aspirations. As the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, you start at the bottom and you want to work up. I became the Minister for the Armed Forces, the first one ever from the ranks—from a junior rank—and that to me was exactly what our armed forces should be aspiring to do.
Many of them face many other challenges, and that came out in the surveys I saw. On my first day in the Department, I had all the chiefs in and said, “Is pay the biggest issue? Why am I losing so many servicemen?” As well as recruitment, retention is massively important. It is almost more important, because those people who are in are by far our best recruiters. They go home on leave—they go home to their families and loved ones—and they talk about their experiences in the armed forces.  We train them and we spend huge amounts of money on them. They have dedicated themselves to us, so we want to keep them in.
One thing that I tried to do was deal with the situation where someone is upset with the unit they are in and they start that process to leave. I wanted us to try to pause them for a fraction and get someone to talk to them, so that they might stay. Perhaps this would be someone in a different unit—in a different part of the armed forces. As the Minister will know, at the moment someone from their own unit usually talks to them to try to convince them to stay, but that person could well be the problem they have had in the first place. So trying to keep these people in the armed forces is massively important. No young soldier, no young matelot, no young Air Force man is ever going to turn around and say, “Don’t give me any more money.” Of course they are not going to do that.
I went around Catterick barracks recently and I went in to the Mons part of the barracks, and I would not have put my dog in to some of the accommodation the people there were having to live in. I came back and went absolutely berserk, and I understand that those repairs have now been done. But it should not be for the Minister to turn up and see that; these things should be done. Comments were made about CarillionAmey earlier, but I had the pleasure of sacking Atos when I was at the Department for Work and Pensions and, should I be the Minister responsible, it would be my great pleasure to do something similar to other companies when they let us down.
The motion is narrow. Her Majesty’s Opposition, in good faith, missed an opportunity for us to have an open debate about the package that our armed forces need—what we should be offering them.

Johnny Mercer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to broaden this debate, the Opposition would find wide support for challenging on a lot of the pertinent issues in debate. Their narrow focus on this one issue makes it impossible for us to focus on the constructive argument around it.

Mike Penning: My hon. and gallant Friend has hit the nail on the head for me. Nobody in this House does not have respect for our armed forces. Nobody would not want to pay them more. But where does the money come from? What part of—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham is chuntering from a sedentary position. When he was the Minister he should have been paid, because he did it for free and I respect him for that. [Interruption.] Well, he should have been paid a lot more for what he was doing. We have bandied this around for many years. The situation for me is: where would the money come from?
I am one of the Conservative Members who wrote to the Chancellor months ago saying that we need to phase the cap out. I passionately believe that if we are in the position now, we have to do it. I was the Policing Minister and I cannot be disingenuous and pretend that I did not push to have it removed for the police; I was also the Fire Minister. The nurses also need it removed. But where is that money going to come from? As the Opposition Front Bencher said, it should not come from expenditure on equipment—I could not agree more.
People cannot just make promises that they are not going to be able to deliver, because that is the worst thing for morale in the armed forces: making promises that we cannot fulfil. If I went through the Lobby on this today not knowing where that money was going to come from, I would be ashamed of myself. I cannot actually do that. Do I want the armed forces to get more pay in the long run? Of course I do. I also want this in the short term, but I want them to have the right equipment and to have the right accommodation. I want them to have the right package, and then we can say that we respect them properly.

Conor McGinn: Let me start by joining other right hon. and hon. Members in acknowledging the work our armed forces do in protecting Britain, both at home and overseas, in difficult circumstances. I wish to specify two of people in the armed forces in particular. The first is the erstwhile Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland or, as he is known after passing out at the weekend, Private Tom Blenkinsop of 243 Provost Company, Norton Detachment, 1st Regiment, Royal Military Police. Tom may no longer be an hon. Member in the parlance of this place, but we can all agree that he is certainly an honourable man and still a good friend to many of us.
The second person I wish to mention is Corporal Andy Reid, from Rainford in my constituency. Andy lost both legs and his right arm to an improved explosive device in Afghanistan, yet this year he and Warrant Officer Glen Hughes cycled 400 miles, kayaked 175 miles and ascended 17,500 feet to raise funds for veterans. I was very honoured, along with the Veterans Minister to host a reception here for Andy.
I use those two cases to illustrate that, as hon. Members have said, money is not the motivation for people to join the armed forces—no one is suggesting it is for a minute—but we do have a duty not to exploit that sense of duty or service, and to treat people and pay people properly. I am sorry to say that I do not think the Government are doing that, and this is causing difficulties for serving personnel and a crisis in recruitment. The Government must address and get to terms with the chronic under-recruitment affecting the Army, but they have been in denial for the past seven years about this. In 2013, when I was the adviser to the then shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and to the then shadow Defence Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), we opposed the Government plan to cut the Regular Army and expressed deep concerns about a lack of reserve recruitment. The then Defence Secretary, now the Chancellor, said:
“to halt that or to seek to reverse it at this stage would simply create confusion in the ranks.”
If the Government continue on their current path, there will not be any ranks left to confuse.

Sylvia Hermon: Earlier, the Minister gave the impression that the armed forces covenant is working well throughout the country. I am absolutely clear that I am a huge supporter of the implementation of the armed forces covenant, but if it is going swimmingly everywhere, why on earth did it have to be specifically written into the deal between the Conservative party and the Democratic Unionist party?

Conor McGinn: The hon. Lady makes an important and interesting point. We have certainly tried hard in my constituency and the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens more widely to implement the armed forces covenant, but there have been issues with its implementation in Northern Ireland. I am sure we would all wish to see those issues resolved and its full implementation in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK.
Despite the Government’s target in the strategic defence and security review to have 82,000 full-time fully trained troops, as of April this year there were just 78,000 soldiers in the Army. By any measure, that is an abject failure on the Government’s watch, and it was rightly identified as a key problem by the former commander of Joint Forces Command, General Sir Richard Barrons. The recent report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) confirmed that the Regular Army needs to recruit 10,000 people a year to maintain its strength, but managed to attract only 7,000 entrants last year.
Worryingly, alongside all that, the figures show that the numbers leaving the part-time Army Reserve, which we were told would be increased to meet the decline in numbers in the Regular Army, increased by 20% between 1 June 2016 and 1 June 2017. At about the same time, in the most recent financial year the reserve intake fell by 18%. The Government do not seem to have a strategy to turn these falling numbers around. In fact, their only solution so far has been to sack another 120 members of the armed forces personnel who serve as recruiters and replace them with civilians from Capita. I say gently to the Minister—as I said earlier, he is an agreeable chap—that he has a bit of a cheek on him to criticise our plans for recruitment and what we would do with the budget when he is taking money out of the pockets of armed forces personnel and giving it to a private company.

Mark Lancaster: rose—

Conor McGinn: I suppose I had better give way.

Mark Lancaster: Of course people join the armed forces and people leave—that is the nature of any job and the nature of the armed forces—but to be absolutely clear, over the past three years the numbers in the reserves has increased, not decreased.

Conor McGinn: I do not wish to contravene the rules of the House by getting into a debate with the Minister, but I am not sure that he can express particular confidence that the target of 30,000 reserve recruits will be met. The Government started to publish the figures only after pressure from the Opposition several years ago. We will continue to monitor progress on that in particular, because although, like the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) said earlier, I am not a mathematician, I know that if we need to recruit 10,000 and we are attracting only 7,000 to the Regular Army, and we have not met the quota that we defined to meet national security needs through recruitment to the reserves, it is not going to add up. It is not going to add up for the armed forces, and it is not going to add for the British public.

Mark Francois: In my speech, I gave figures about recruiting targets for the reserves and explained where we currently stand, and I pointed out that we are ahead of target.

Conor McGinn: There is a huge issue with respect to the figures, but there is also a problem in thinking that we can replace regular soldiers with reserves. The truth is that this Government have cut the Army, and they have cut it to below their own target, which was 20,000 below how things stood when Labour left office. There is worry about recruitment and there is worry about capability. With the proposed further cuts, there is a real danger that, in a very dangerous and uncertain global context, Britain’s defence and security could be undermined and, indeed, compromised.
On this Government’s watch, the armed forces have been cut, their pay is down, key capabilities are being hollowed out and our world-leading defence industry is being left behind—the latter is perhaps something we can debate on another occasion. The armed forces and the British public deserve far, far better.

Leo Docherty: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. First and foremost, it is important that the discussion is based in fact. On that note, we must recognise that a 1% increase to armed forces pay was recommended in January this year—

Kevan Jones: This year, not last year.

Leo Docherty: In 2017. The Government accepted that recommendation. They declared that they were moving away from a blanket 1% cap on public sector pay, and we anticipate that the armed forces pay review board will make suggestions that the Government will accept. We must bear in mind that good news when we discuss this issue.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying is just wrong. Over the past six years, the Government have completely ignored the pay review body. I do not know where he gets the idea—I must have missed this—that the Government are going to accept its future recommendations, because I am not aware of such an announcement.

Leo Docherty: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention back in September, he would have noticed that the Government indicated that there will be a move away from a blanket 1% public sector pay cap. If the Army pay review board makes a recommendation to the Government about increasing pay, it is likely that the Government will accept it, so it is entirely erroneous to paint a picture of armed forces pay being cut.
We must recognise that, broadly, the offer to the armed forces is good. In addition to increases in basic salary, armed forces personnel enjoy subsidised housing and non-contributory pensions. That is important and we must recognise it. There are of course concerns, and we must be vigilant in safeguarding and improving the experiences of our armed forces personnel, but the offer is good. I hear from people in my constituency concerns that are more related to kit and equipment, and to opportunities for training and deployment.
The issue of pay should not be a political football to be kicked around by Opposition Members. There is a good story to tell and we should be positive about the broad offer that the armed forces present to people.  Sadly, the Opposition are talking it down; to demonstrate how, I shall quote the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Madeleine Moon: rose—

Leo Docherty: I shall make some progress before I give way.
A few years ago, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“I would like us to live in a world where we spend a lot less on defence.”
In 2015, he said:
“Why do we have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world?”
Shortly after that, he said:
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world, instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces, did what the people of Costa Rica have done and abolished their army”.
What a disgraceful indictment of the Leader of the Opposition’s attitude.

Nia Griffith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to do what the Leader of the Opposition is going to do this evening and vote for the motion to show his unequivocal support for our armed forces.

Leo Docherty: I look forward to every single opportunity in this place to demonstrate my commitment to the armed forces, but playing the games of the Opposition will not be included in my repertoire.
I was pleased during Prime Minister’s questions to extend a warm invitation to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to visit my constituency, Aldershot, the home of the British Army, and the Aldershot garrison. In the spirit of public service and the national interest, I extend that invitation to the Leader of the Opposition. If he made time in his diary to spend time with some of the regiments we have in the garrison—including the 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, the 1st Battalion the Scots Guards, the 4 Rifles and the Queen’s Own Gurkha Logistic Regiment—that would not only improve his turnout, but generate a greater degree of sympathy for the armed forces that he would do well to express in future.
On a slightly more serious note, the message that we send to our young men and women who are considering a career in the armed forces must be positive and upbeat. We live in a time of unparalleled global instability: the middle east is in flames; NATO is being challenged by Russia; and there is a potential nuclear conflagration in North Korea. We have huge global threats and challenges. I am very pleased that the British armed forces will be able to deliver on a global scale both hard and soft power over the coming years. We should make it very clear to the young men and women who are considering serving in the armed forces that the future is very bright. If there are any young people who are watching this debate, they should know that there are tremendous careers available in the armed forces. If they do join up, they will be doing their country proud.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate today—and of course a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), not least because it means that his speech has come to an end.
On a more serious note, as the hon. Gentleman would say, in 11 days’ time all of us will be standing around our local cenotaphs. One thing that moves me greatly is meeting the families of military personnel—both former and present—and hearing the issues that they raise. One such issue is below-inflation pay settlements, but there are other issues relating to accommodation and how the rises in costs are not met by those pay settlements, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan).
Mention was also made earlier about the credit unions, which were an excellent initiative. Let us not forget that those unions were set up because research showed that 20,000 military personnel—and former military personnel—were relying on payday loans. That is the reality of the situation. I pay tribute to the Government, as they listened to the Royal British Legion on its campaign. I wish to use this debate today in the hope that they will listen to the Royal British Legion on another campaign—the “count them in” campaign. In that campaign, the Royal British Legion is asking for a designated question or questions in the census so that more information can be provided on who our military and former military personnel are, so that they can be better served in our communities.
I hope that Ministers will welcome the fact that the Office for National Statistics made a very positive report on this subject. It said:
“Our understanding of the user need for information on those who have served, and now left, the UK armed forces has grown.”
The ONS has noted that linked data only partially meets the users’ needs. We now know also that 88% of people surveyed by the ONS think that it is acceptable to ask these designated questions. The ONS further comments:
“Based on the testing so far, the ONS have concluded that it will be possible to finalise a question that works and is broadly acceptable.”
I really hope that, at this time of year and before the next census is prepared, our Government honour the campaign of the Royal British Legion; honour what is being requested by many military families around our country; listen to the very thoughtful words of the ONS; and fully support the “count them in” campaign so that we as a country can better serve those people who have served and are serving us.

Alex Chalk: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. I must admit that I was a little surprised when I read that this was the topic that had been chosen by the Opposition, given that the Leader of the Opposition, when faced with the option on Armed Forces Day to honour the British armed forces, chose instead to go and stand in a field in Glastonbury to talk about dismantling Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent.
It is important to place all this in context. The allegation being made is that the UK Government are not supporting the armed forces. Well, let us take a look at that. The British Government have the second largest budget in NATO and the largest in the EU. We are meeting the 2% target, which, by the way, Germany, Italy and Spain are not. Furthermore, spending is forecast to increase. Seven ships and submarines have started to  be built. There is a kit projection of £178 billion between 2016 and 2026. What does that translate into? It translates into jobs in my constituency. For example, the excellent CDS Defence Support will be supporting that investment.
Something that has not been mentioned thus far is the fact that £1.9 billion will be invested in intelligence spending, so that GCHQ in my constituency will be able to expand and to keep us safe. It is concerning that that £1.9 billion seems to have been forgotten. To put it in context, that is about half of the total amount that we spend on prisons. That is something that the UK Government are supporting. Let me add this: spending supports not just the valiant and skilful men and women of our armed forces and intelligence services, but the local economy. A cyber-innovation centre has been set up in Cheltenham and is doing great work. The finest minds are going in and out of places such as GCHQ to nurture small businesses.
Of course the issue of pay is important, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) has said, it is part of a basket of issues. It is not for me to advise the Loyal Opposition on what to talk about, but it might have been more judicious to broaden the scope and the basket of issues. Some issues, such as accommodation, are clearly very important. To focus the whole debate purely on pay is, I say respectfully, ill advised.

Bob Stewart: In 28 years, I cannot recall a soldier complaining about pay. However, they often complained about allowances, particularly when changing from one theatre to another on operations and losing their local overseas allowance. That is correct. They do complain about that, and it is something that we should look at, because service personnel, particularly those in the junior ranks, find it very difficult.

Alex Chalk: That is exactly the kind of sophistication that should be brought to this debate. We should be looking at specific issues, which can improve the lives of serving soldiers, sailors and airmen and women.
The principles that we should apply are tolerably simple. First, we should listen to independent experts—the pay review bodies—and, secondly, we should build in flexibility where there is a skills shortage. I will return to that briefly in a moment. It is right, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in Prime Minister’s questions today, to look at the context of the public finances. She said that we are spending £50 billion a year on debt interest alone. That raises a really important moral argument. When we talk about the future of our armed forces, we do not just want armed forces for today, tomorrow or next week; we want our children to be able to enjoy the protection of the armed forces as well.
What is Labour’s suggested solution to this? Notwithstanding the fact that we have public borrowing of about £58 billion each year and a national debt of £1.7 trillion, its remedy is more borrowing, more debt and more tax. Where does that leave us as a country? If we were to borrow an additional £500 billion, as has been suggested, our national debt would go from £1.7 trillion to £2.2 trillion. What happens to that £50 billion that we are spending each year? It goes to  about £65 billion. Basically, before we pay for a single soldier, a single police officer, or a single nurse, we will be spending £62 billion a year when the entire defence budget is £36 billion. There will be people born today in our country who in 30 years’ time, through no fault of their own, will either knock on the door of the welfare state because, as an entirely deserving case, they need assistance, or they will want the protection of our armed forces, but the cupboard risks being bare if the Opposition are able to achieve what they want to achieve.

Kevan Jones: I thought that the Tory party’s script had changed; obviously the hon. Gentleman does not have the new one. Will he explain, therefore—

Alex Chalk: rose—

Kevan Jones: He needs to sit down.

Alex Chalk: I was chomping at the bit.

Kevan Jones: The Government were able to find £1 billion out of fresh air to pass over in their agreement with the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland so that they could stay in power, so why can they not fund the pay of our armed forces?

Alex Chalk: With respect, that argument has been made with tedious regularity. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of the public finances. This country borrows £58 billion every single year. The nation spends £803 billion a year. Yet, Labour wants to borrow £500 billion, which in turn would increase our annual payment by something in the order of £12 billion. That would be monstrous and disastrous for the UK economy and future generations. There is an issue of generational justice, and that is a message that Labour has not learned.

Nia Griffith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks it is better to get this country’s deficit down by asking the wealthy and the big corporations to pay a little bit more, or does he want it to come off the backs of our hard-working armed forces?

Alex Chalk: With respect, that is complete financial illiteracy. The top 1% in this country are paying 28% of total spending. That is a higher figure than ever. The hon. Lady fails to mention that people started to pay tax at earnings of a little more than £6,000 under the last Labour Government. We do not require the lowest paid to pay tax after £6,000 now; the threshold is up at £11,500. That means more money in the pockets of low-paid people. We have increased the national living wage, which also puts more money in the pockets of ordinary people. It is the complete inability to engage with the figures that, with respect, undermines Labour’s position.
It is important, of course, that we do everything that we possibly can to support our brave men and women. It is also important that we increase flexibility where there are shortages, which is why it is important to observe that there may be extenuating circumstances—for example, in GCHQ, where there is sometimes difficulty getting and retaining the brightest and the best. We want brilliant armed forces today, tomorrow and in the years to come, and that is why I will not support the Labour motion.

Paul Sweeney: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I reflect on the values and standards that I was taught in the service. A fundamental one was the notion that credible leadership is derived from serving others and serving the interests particularly of those we lead. This House could demonstrate its leadership and its credibility in the leadership of our armed forces by ensuring that our service personnel have the adequate remuneration that reflects the nature of their service and dedication to our country. Only 33% of service personnel are satisfied with the basic rate of pay, so it is clear that there is dissatisfaction. It is a rather ill-observed point that, just because pay is not the primary driver of someone’s behaviour and career development, it is not important and not worthy of discussion in this House. It is, in fact, very worthy of discussion in this House, and I repudiate those sentiments utterly.
It has been mentioned that the X factor of incremental pay reflects the antisocial nature of the career of regular forces and that it makes up for the fall-off and restraint on pay. But it does not; only a quarter of the personnel surveyed think that it is sufficient compensation for the disruption it causes in their lives. A key thing to bear in mind is that the X factor is not much of an X factor at all.
An interesting observation about service pay that has been made across the House is that service in the armed forces provides a great opportunity for career development, particularly for young people. One of the great advantages of joining the armed forces is that the lower increment for minimum wage does not apply. It would be great if the Scottish National party could reflect that sentiment in ensuring that we continue to extend the opportunity to serve in our armed forces to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Stewart McDonald: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a recent debate on policy change at my party’s conference. I am sure he will note when he gets to his feet that I argued against that change in policy.

Paul Sweeney: It is reassuring indeed that the SNP spokesperson on defence matters continues to uphold the principle that young people should be allowed to join the armed forces and develop their careers in the service. That is most welcome.
Consider a serviceperson on the lowest basic rate of pay. When on 24-hour deployments—on exercise or operations—their basic pay could actually go down to a notional value of £2 an hour. Is that really the value of our armed forces when they are dedicated to that extent? Any plans to remove the increments associated with overseas service are totally unacceptable. We should bear that in mind when we consider appropriate rates of pay for our armed forces. We talk about the great opportunity that a career in the service provides, particularly for skills development, apprenticeships and trade opportunities.

Mike Penning: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about career prospects and the package. Why was that not in Labour’s motion? Many of us would have agreed with exactly what he is talking about.

Paul Sweeney: We are making the point that, by virtue of that great opportunity for development, these people are very attractive to the private sector. When inflation picks up and private sector salaries respond, we will see increasing pressure on retention in the service, especially if pay continues to lag behind that in the private sector. We need to address the situation urgently if we are to continue making our armed forces capable.

Luke Pollard: In Plymouth, the private sector is already poaching some of the engineering grades in particular, and pay is one of the reasons why people are leaving the armed services to work in the private sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the case?

Paul Sweeney: Yes, I absolutely agree. Engineering and air crews in particular have urgent issues of undermanning in the service.
It is alarming that the entire regular Army can be comfortably seated in Wembley stadium now that its numbers have fallen below 82,000 and it is 6% undermanned. In contrast, the regular Army numbered 103,000 when I joined in 2006 and it could not fit into Wembley stadium.
The defence budget has fallen from 2.5% of GDP to under 2% over the term of this Tory Government. There is a chaotic equipment programme. Whether it is Nimrod or the cats and traps on the carriers, fiasco after fiasco has bled resources out of the armed forces through lack of efficient management of equipment programmes. It is shocking that armed forces pay should suffer as a result.

Tobias Ellwood: I just want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to correct what he just said. It was the Labour Government who chose to abandon cats and traps, and who slowed down the building of the aircraft carrier, which cost over £1 billion on top of the original bill. That is what happened to the aircraft carrier under a Labour Government.[Official Report, 20 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 3-4MC.]

Paul Sweeney: I have to correct the Minister. That is factually incorrect. I worked at BAE Systems at the time. The project was commissioned as a result of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, and £1 billion was utterly wasted before the project was cancelled.
I will quickly draw my comments to a conclusion. The Armed Forces Pay Review Board has highlighted that the 2016-17 pay review was not an increase in real terms at all because of the impact of national insurance increases and the changes to housing cost allowances. From 2010 to present, it actually represents a 5.3% cut in real-terms pay for our armed forces. The reality is borne out by the evidence presented today, and it is comprehensive. We have seen a litany of failure, falling expenditure and stagnating incomes. That leads to a fall in morale. As a result, outflow has exceeded recruitment since 2011. Let us come together in this House today to recognise that there is a vicious cycle of downsizing. We must move towards a virtuous cycle of investment that will stop the continued degradation of our armed forces and ensure that the operational effectiveness of our armed forces is secure for the future in a very dangerous world.

Johnny Mercer: Thank you for squeezing me in, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not going to speak today but I felt compelled to come to the Chamber and give my two pence-worth. I very much enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), but it would be remiss of me not to point out how narrowly he danced on the line between delusion and fiction. He was veterans Minister in 2008-09, when I was fighting those campaigns. This is not about me or about anybody’s personal service; this is about truth and fact, and the fact is that the equipment with which we fought those campaigns and the care for veterans were simply appalling. I cannot stand here and allow Opposition Members to say that Labour’s record on defence is so—

Kevan Jones: rose—

Johnny Mercer: No, I will not give way at this moment.
I cannot say that the Labour party’s record on defence is so superior to the Conservative party’s.

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for one Member to accuse another Member of something that is not true and then not allow that Member to respond to it?

Rosie Winterton: I am sure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) will feel that if he has referred to another hon. Member in that way, he might like to take an intervention.

Johnny Mercer: Am I alleged to have said something that is not true? What have I said that is not true?

Kevan Jones: I am not going to get into a discussion. What is not true is what the hon. Gentleman just said about cutting support for veterans.

Johnny Mercer: I didn’t say that.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Can we not have conversation across the Chamber? This is an intervention and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View will then respond to it.

Kevan Jones: I was proud to introduce the Army Recovery Capability, which made sure we supported the armed forces coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq with severe injuries. I was proud to be a part of a Labour Government who introduced the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004, which for the first time brought in lump sum payments for those severely injured. The track record of our Administration on support for veterans will stand up to any scrutiny in comparison with what the Conservative Government have done since.

Johnny Mercer: It may be worth the hon. Gentleman putting that debate on our offer to our veterans and service personnel to the court of public opinion. The time between 2003 and 2015 saw the biggest explosion of military charities this country has ever seen because of the lack of provision that he presided over. It would be a good thing to put that into the public domain and to see whether his argument bears out the facts.
It is important that this debate is grounded in fact. This should not be a partisan issue. We should not be talking about what Labour did or what the Conservative Government did. There are areas—[Interruption.] I have to talk about it, because of the fiction coming from the Opposition. We need to work harder on some serious elements of defence—mental health, veterans’ care, what we want our armed forces to stand for, and, crucially, what we do not want from our armed forces as we move forward to the period post-Brexit—but we must ground this debate in credibility and reality.
Yes, when it comes to pay everybody would like to be paid more. I could not find a single serviceman or servicewoman in the UK armed forces today who would not like more money, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme if I were to stand here and say that that is the single blanket issue that drives down recruitment and reduces our ability to retain skilled men and women, or to stand here and say that a career in the armed forces is not worth it or completely constrained by appalling terms and conditions. That is not the case.
I want to address what is one of the most frustrating things about this place. We have a world-class military. Of all the things I can be accused of, of which there are many, being a Government lackey on defence is not one of them. If Members look at my record on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and defence spending, or have a brief conversation with the Minister for the Armed Forces, who recoils at the very mention of my name, they will know that I am not a defence lackey. On our capability, yes, we had more ships in the Falklands and more tanks and so on, but in the Falklands a lot of the guns and the ships did not work. The type 26 frigate is one of the world’s most capable combat ships. Members can shake their heads and say, “Well, it doesn’t employ millions of people and the steel did not come from exactly where I wanted it to,” but we have a world-class military. It is therefore extremely disingenuous to the people of this country to constantly use this as a political football between the Labour party and the Conservative party over who is doing better on defence. We have deep challenges, but I gently suggest that pay is not one of them.

Anna Soubry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reasons why some fall out of our armed forces are hugely complex? There are all sorts of different reasons. It could be accommodation. It could be that they often find it difficult with their spouses, who want employment and some sort of family life. In an increasingly modern world, that is often thought not to be compatible with military service. There is a rich and important mixture of different things; it is not just one thing and it is not just pay.

Johnny Mercer: Absolutely. That is why the Government are trying hard. I come back to the fact that I am not going to stand here and say it is all rosy when it comes to defence. On Monday, the Government had the Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill, which will fundamentally change the offer we give. We have to constantly challenge the offer we give to our armed forces personnel, but to pretend that pay is the limiting factor as to why so many people are leaving and why we have so many challenges on recruitment is not fair on the Government and not fair on the people who serve. We are making them think it is an issue when it is not.
We have a lot of work to do on defence, but pay is not a part of that. Let us put the debate into the realms of reality, so we can get somewhere and deliver something for those who I know will be watching this debate and scanning it for credibility. They will not, I am afraid, have seen much of it today.

Vernon Coaker: No one believes that our armed forces are anything but among the best in the world. There is no division about that. Everybody knows as well that it is not just pay, but I think there are some real challenges facing our armed forces today both in terms of retention and recruitment.
I would like to use the Government’s own statistics, published on 12 October straight from the MOD. I think pay is relevant and is one of those challenges. I agree about accommodation and all the other comments that have been made, but pay is a factor. It is really important for the Minister to understand the scale of the challenge we are facing as a country in the recruitment and retention of our armed forces. The key points and trends from the Government’s own figures show that the strength of UK armed forces personnel is down. Full-time trained strength—down. I say to the Minister that that is with the new way to judge what are full-time personnel, where people do just phase one training, not phases one and two. Deficit against the planned number of personnel needed—up. People joining the UK regular armed forces—down. People joining the future reserves—down.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vernon Coaker: No. I am sorry, but other Members would not be able to speak.
People who have left the future reserves—an increase.
I am not saying to the Minister or the House that we are all doomed, but we would be neglecting our responsibilities if we did not look at what is happening. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in an excellent speech, pointed out the difficulties in relation to hollowing out. There is good news, but there are also real problems. It is the same with pay. The Minister said that pay had gone up, yet his own documentation shows, in figure 11, that armed forces pay has actually gone down. Either the Minister is publishing wrong information on the internet, or his speech is wrong. We also learn that the real growth of military salaries is negative, at minus 0.1% during 2015-16.
I just wanted to put those facts on the table, because there is a real challenge for us as a country and a Parliament in terms of what we do about this issue. We have been debating recruitment to the armed forces for years. We have been debating the retention of armed forces personnel for years. We can argue about who is right and who is wrong, but this country faces a very real difficulty with this issue. I think pay is one aspect of it, and accommodation is another.
However, I want to point out another thing to the Minister—members of other bodies to do with defence have heard me say this before. The policy briefing—this is part of the issue—talks about the main factors affecting decisions about the size of the armed forces required by the Ministry of Defence to achieve success in its military tasks. It lists a number of things, but the crucial one is  an assessment of current and future threats to UK national security. We need to explain to the public what we want our armed forces for, what we expect them to do and, therefore, why we wish people to join them. Some of that is about having a grown-up conversation with people. Yes, we should talk about recruiting, but we should have a clear vision of why we are proud of our armed forces and the job they do, and why we need them to pursue the objectives we as a country have, whether abroad or defending our citizens at home against the threats we face.
There are real challenges, and they are set out in the Government’s own documents. The Minister needs to say how things will be different, so that we can see success, rather than these perennial debates about what we will do about the fact that we are not recruiting enough people and not retaining enough people for long enough.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team for calling this important debate, and I will be supporting the motion.
This is an opportunity to debunk some of the myths and misrepresentations we have heard during the debate about the Labour party’s defence policy. In the Labour party manifesto “For the many not the few” it is written with complete clarity that Labour supports a
“strong, viable and sustainable defence and security policy”
and that that
“must be strategic and evidence led”,
and not the financially driven defence agenda of the Conservative party.
The manifesto also says:
“We will ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped and resourced to respond to wide-ranging security challenges.”
There is a suggestion that the Conservative party is somehow the guardian of probity and competence, but there are many examples—the Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft, the 18-month delay with the RFA Tidespring and the disbanding of the Harrier force—where the Government’s procurement decisions have impacted on the defence budget. Labour is also committed to spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, and we
“will guarantee that our Armed Forces have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the full range of obligations”
that are set for them.
We have a duty to properly reward and remunerate our armed forces. It is clear that, under the Conservatives, they have been hit by rent rises, pay restraint, and changes to tax and benefits, which has put real pressure on service personnel and their families. Labour will ensure that servicemen and women get the pay and living conditions their service merits.
I do not have a military base or establishment in my constituency, but I am fortunate to have a strong and active forces community, and it has a noble tradition of high levels of recruitment to all three armed services. This Sunday—5 November—there will be a unique act of remembrance in my constituency. Last year, the Remember Them Fund constructed a huge poppy, using thousands of painted beach pebbles—I live by the coast next to Seaham harbour—to create a stunning tribute   to the servicemen and women of our armed forces. This Sunday, at the foot of “Tommy”, a renowned piece of local artwork commemorating the last moments of world war one, another unique tribute is to be unveiled. It is to be called “Fruits of the Sea”, and it will use natural materials collected from the award-winning east Durham coast, such as seashells, scallops and shingle, to form a huge poppy.
I am delighted to have been invited to unveil this year’s poppy artwork. In a spirit of solidarity and generosity, I would be very happy to invite the Minister to accompany me. He would be more than welcome to visit Seaham this weekend to help to highlight this year’s poppy appeal. I hope that in his closing statements he will commend the work of all the volunteers who have spent many months planning this tribute in support of our service personnel. It is one of many examples of how communities honour the armed forces covenant, which is a really important aspect of how we treat our veterans.
I am sorry that because of the shortage of time I am not able to develop these arguments. Marvellous work is done by terrific charities such as the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and, in my area, the Remember Them Fund. We have a moral obligation to the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. The nation owes them a debt of honour and we should ensure that we fulfil that debt. The modest armed forces pension is another issue that many veterans identify to me as causing them significant problems. I urge the House to support the Opposition motion.

Alex Sobel: I thank Opposition Front Benchers for calling this debate.
I was recently approached by the wife of a serving member of the armed forces who described to me the daily struggle that her family face in the light of the fact that her husband, a private in the Army, has not had a real-terms pay increase under this Government. In fact, figures from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body show that they have had a 5.3% real-terms reduction in pay since 2010. As with many families of service personnel, they rely on this income due to the fact that a life in the military often stations families away from their support networks, with real financial and childcare implications. She recently received a letter from the Combined Accommodation Assessment System, or CAAS, which outlines a year-on-year increase in the charges for their quarters. How does the Minister suggest that this family make ends meet as they face greater charges on the one hand and a real-terms pay cut on the other?

James Cleverly: rose—

Alex Sobel: I am sorry, but I must make progress.
On top of this, as a family of five, they have been hit hard by the Government’s two-child cap on child benefit. The personal experience of the woman I spoke to is reflected in the findings of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, whose latest report says:
“A common theme from our visits was that the one per cent basic pay award for 2016-17 was not perceived as an increase as it coincided with increases in National Insurance, changes in tax  credits and CAAS increases…that left a number of Service personnel seeing a reduction in take home pay”.
It is no wonder, given these circumstances, that servicemen and women are leaving the profession and that the armed forces are now facing a recruitment and retention crisis.
Like most Members on both sides of the House, I am wearing a poppy to commemorate and honour those who have sacrificed their lives in the service of our country. The best way to honour those who put themselves at risk is to make sure that their families are not living hand to mouth. As my former constituent said to me—she is no longer my constituent as the family have been stationed away from her home county of Yorkshire for some time—she is one more ill-advised Government reform away from not being able to afford to feed her family. This is again reflected in the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which says:
“On levels of pay generally, our visit programme made clear that Service personnel are becoming increasingly frustrated with public sector pay policy.”
Last week, we saw a BBC “Panorama” programme that showed a mental health nurse brought to tears, a firefighter forced to take a second job, and a homeless police officer. If we add to that the family of an Army private struggling to cope, we get a full picture of the destruction that is caused by this Government’s systemic squeeze on living standards and public sector pay. I would like Ministers to consider this: we once built a land fit for heroes—what has happened?

Wayne David: We have had a very good debate today. Members of the House have made excellent contributions, but I do not have time to refer to them—I apologise.
It is true to say that our armed forces face enormous problems. They have a huge problem with recruitment and retention and face the scandalous inadequacy of the levels of remuneration for the men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line to defend this country. Those problems are linked. In a report commissioned by the Prime Minister and published in July this year, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about a perfect storm against which military recruiters have had to battle. As he said, the regular strength of the UK’s armed forces is some 5% below what was planned. There is also the problem of retention, with more personnel leaving the services than joining them.
Although there are several reasons why the armed forces are in such a predicament, a large part of the blame must rest with how the Army recruits its personnel, for which Capita bears a large measure of responsibility. The “hollowing out” in the ranks, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his report, is caused by several factors. Without doubt, the privatisation of Army recruitment and the outsourcing of aspects of recruitment for the other services has played a major role. The poor quality of living accommodation for servicemen and women and their families is another important factor.

Mark Lancaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: I am sorry, but time is short. Another huge problem is the levels of pay in the armed forces. As the most recent pay review body report indicates, members of the armed forces
“feel their pay is being unfairly constrained in a period when costs are rising, private sector earnings are starting to recover, and the high tempo demands on the Armed Forces have not diminished.”

Mark Lancaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: Time is limited, as the Minister knows. I respectfully ask him to sit down.
The Government say that they are introducing flexibility in the future pay regime, but let us be clear. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body stated in its 2017 report that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury sent it a letter to say that the Government’s policy of pay restraint remained in place. The letter states:
“We will fund public sector workforces for pay awards of an average of 1 per cent a year, up to 2019/20.”
The pay review body report makes it clear that that is the context in which the body was obliged to work, and that point has been well made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

Mark Lancaster: rose—

Wayne David: If there is to be greater flexibility, as the Secretary of State has hinted, where will the extra money come from? The MOD is already undertaking a mini defence review and significant cuts are already being considered, with 1,000 Marines, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion ready for the chop. It would be totally unacceptable for any pay increase to be funded by further cuts to the defence budget. Will the Minister indicate when he responds that the Department has the courage to stand up to the Treasury and demand that extra money be forthcoming for our brave men and women in the armed forces?

Mark Lancaster: rose—

Wayne David: Where will the money come from? We will call for extra contributions of up to 5% from large corporations and we will demand that the super-rich pay a little bit more, instead of enjoying the largesse that the Government have given them. I am not hopeful that that will happen, however, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State and his friends—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is up to the shadow Minister to give way, or not. My understanding is that there was no giving way earlier, so if there is tit for tat, that is up to each individual; it is not for the Chair. What I do not want is this continuous barracking across the Chamber, with Members saying, “He is not giving way” and, “Will he give way?”. [Interruption.] There are no more contributions, are there? Wayne David, please.

Wayne David: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the chuntering and the interruptions are indicative of the crass behaviour of the Ministry of Defence, which we are debating this afternoon.
I am not hopeful that Ministers will stand up for the armed forces, which they claim to support, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State for Defence is considering scrapping the special allowance given to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will the Minister, in his response—I will give him time to respond—make a commitment not to cut the special service allowance?
As we approach Remembrance Sunday—several Members mentioned it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones)—it is surely imperative that the House unites in support of our armed forces. This afternoon, many contributions have strongly supported lifting the pay cap. I very much hope that all of us will support the motion, and call for a fair pay rise for our armed forces. Especially at this time of the year, our armed forces deserve nothing less. [Interruption.]

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The Minister should sit down for a second.
Mr Lancaster, I do not know whether you are deliberately trying to frustrate the Chair—I am sure that is not your intention—but you are going a good way towards doing so. Let me help you. It is up to the Opposition spokesman when he sits down. The Minister has asked for extra time to respond, so you should be thanking Mr David for sitting down to give him that extra time. Let us have less chuntering, and let us hear from Minister Ellwood.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a passionate and mostly constructive debate. It is a real pleasure to add my support, as expressed on both sides of the House, for our noble, gallant and brave armed forces.
Before I respond to the debate, may I join the Prime Minister and I am sure the whole House in sending our best wishes, thoughts and prayers to those affected by yet another terrorist attack in Manhattan in New York? That place is close to my heart: I was born there, and I have worked there as well. The attack reflects the type of security challenges we continue to face not just in this country, but across the world.
As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, we need to see this debate in the wider context of fiscal responsibility, and that must be the backdrop to any discussion on pay. It is only with a growing economy that we can responsibly make any changes to funding for Departments. Let us not forget that we inherited a deficit of almost £150 billion. That is now down by three quarters, but the annual interest on the nation’s debt continues to be more than £50 billion every year, and we cannot simply take money if it does not exist. Under this Government, the economy is growing, employment is up and it is now possible to lift the 1% pay freeze imposed by the Treasury, which is good news.
This debate has focused primarily on armed forces pay, but it cannot be directly compared with other types of public sector pay, such as in the NHS and so forth—we must look at the other aspects that make wearing the uniform very different. We have to recognise the subsidised accommodation and food; the X factor pay, which many hon. Members mentioned; the pensions package; the free medical and dental care; the allowances, including operational pay; and of course the automatic pay progression, which has also been mentioned. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body considers all those factors before any changes are made.

Stewart McDonald: Specifically on pensions, the MOD’s continuous attitude survey shows that dissatisfaction with the package was at 38% in 2013, but is now at 52%. Why?

Tobias Ellwood: I take from the continuous attitude survey that, yes, we have to recognise the concerns about pay and indeed about pensions—such concerns are felt on both sides of the House—but the biggest concerns are the long periods of separation and the pressures on family life. That is exactly why we are introducing the armed forces people programme, which will alleviate the pressure on families caused by separation. We are providing a new joiners’ offer and a new accommodation offer, and we are also looking at a new enterprise approach, which will allow highly capable people in the private sector to slide across into the armed forces. There is also the flexible engagement model that we debated in the Chamber on Monday.
As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, and this has been reiterated by Members on both sides of the House, we must recognise how different it is to wear the uniform in today’s context. It is becoming tougher to recruit because we have full employment, and it is becoming difficult to retain because of the challenges and competition we have in public life. Unlike the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)—who perhaps teased my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in denying him the ability to contribute to the debate—we recognise those different circumstances, and we are trying to get people to step forward.
The conduct of war itself has changed. What we expect to ask of our brave service personnel is also different. That is the context of the debate, and that is reflected perhaps in the recruitment and retention challenges that have been echoed across the House.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for giving way, particularly as I did not get a chance to ask this question when the debate finished half an hour early the other day. Earlier, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the current commissioning course at Sandhurst was at full capacity, but I looked at the figures for the most recent course: only 210 places were taken up when the capacity was 270. Can the Minister clarify what is going on? Is the course at capacity or not?

Tobias Ellwood: If I may, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details, but I do not shy away from the challenges that we face. I have just made that clear. It is difficult to recruit and retain in the manner that we would wish because of a number of circumstances, which have been highlighted by the report produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I shall come to that shortly.

Conor McGinn: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: This will be the last time I give way, if I may.

Conor McGinn: The Minister for the Armed Forces was quick to his feet earlier to dispute figures that I gave that show that numbers leaving the Army Reserve increased by 20% between June last year and this year. Furthermore,  the intake decreased by 18%. Those are not my figures; they are the Government’s figures. Would the Minister care to acknowledge that?

Tobias Ellwood: I think that, overall, reserve numbers are up, but, again, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail.
To move on—

Wayne David: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He tests the patience of the House in rising to his feet after denying my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces I do not know how many times the opportunity to intervene.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), talked about the importance of Remembrance Day, which was also highlighted by other hon. Members, and about the importance of pay itself. She also talked about the role of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, whose recommendations will, I understand, come through in March.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) used the debate as an opportunity mostly to promote his views on Trident, which are not shared across the House. Indeed, this nation would become a lot weaker if we were to get rid of Trident. That would not be in anybody’s interest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford produced a report highlighting some of the challenges we face, and I fully agree with him that we need to work on improving diversity. It is important that we attract the brightest and the best, and that includes recruitment moving up to 15% by 2020 for women, and up to 10% for BAME—black, Asian and minority ethnic. I am grateful to him for the work he did on that important report.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the black hole in defence finances. We came into government recognising that £38 billion was seemingly missing, because it had been stolen from future budgets, but let us take a step back.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: In a second. When we came into government, we found a black hole in the nation’s finances, with £150 billion missing. Although the Labour Government managed to balance the books back in 2000, every single year thereafter they spent more and more money that they did not have, but which belonged to the taxpayer. That is why we ended up with the deficit and the recession—they were taking money that did not exist.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry that the Cameron Kool-Aid is now being handed round again in the Conservative party. I ask the Minister to look at the facts—

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Kevan Jones: Look at the National Audit Office report of 2010. What it said on the equipment budget, not the overall budget, was that on its current basis the figure would be £6 billion. If there was no increase in line with  inflation over a 10-year period, the figure would be £36 billion, not £38 billion—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. First, if the Minister takes the intervention both Members cannot be on their feet and he cannot suddenly say, “I don’t want to hear any more of it.” In fairness, if he gives way he needs to let the intervention get to the end. If I think the intervention is too long, let me take that decision. Let us not have both Members on their feet.

Tobias Ellwood: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I make it clear that the facts are very clear. Look at any—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Lindsay Hoyle: Look what you’ve done now. You’ve got a point of order: Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry—

Lindsay Hoyle: Hang on. The Minister has been here long enough; you know you have got to sit down. Please, let us follow the rules of engagement. As ex-army personnel, you are very good at that. Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: It is a serious point of order. The right hon. Gentleman gave way to me, and then he stood up when I had not finished. But the serious point is that what he is saying is not true—not the facts—and as a Minister, he should not be actually saying that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Whoa! Nobody would mislead the House with an untruth.

Mike Penning: Withdraw!

Lindsay Hoyle: Sir Mike Penning, thank you. Your knighthood goes before us. [Interruption.] Now, we know that that is not the parliamentary way. I am sure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) does not mean it in the sense in which it was given.

Kevan Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. All I am saying is that accurate information must be given. If the Minister looks at the NAO report from 2010, he will see the actual figure, instead of the bluster which he keeps—

Lindsay Hoyle: Okay. I will accept “accuracy” but not “truth”. Minister.

Tobias Ellwood: I am not sure whether I should sit down or stand up.

Lindsay Hoyle: No, I tell you what: you’ll sit down. If we are going to play the game, we will start playing it. Now then, Minister: on your feet.

Tobias Ellwood: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a huge amount of respect for the work that the hon. Gentleman did, and continues to do, in supporting our armed forces, but the numbers are clear. The growth of the deficit since 2000, moving forward, increased, increased and increased; and that is the black hole that I was actually referring to.
I think we have milked this subject enough for the moment, so I will move on. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) spoke about the importance of the covenant. She is in her place. I thank her for the work that she does on this important matter and I would like to meet the Committee at the earliest opportunity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) spoke of the package of financial support, which is very important. I have touched on that. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said that the reserve numbers are increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) spoke with passion about his constituency. It was a pleasure to visit the event to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Falklands campaign. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) spoke about the importance of the Royal British Legion. I am really pleased that the Office for National Statistics has agreed to include a tick—a requirement—for veterans and I am pleased that everyone has worked towards that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about the importance of the equipment that we have—£178 billion is being spent on that. He also said that the total cost of the promises that Labour has made so far under this Government is £500 billion. I do not know where that money will come from.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) spoke about cats and traps. I want to make it clear that the electromagnetic aircraft launch system—EMALS—was being promoted. That simply had not matured in time. There was no way that we were going to buy F-35Cs for the aircraft carrier; they could not have been launched off it because there is no steam.

Paul Sweeney: rose—

Wayne David: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: I will not give way. There is no steam on board the aircraft carriers. They are diesel; they are not powered by atomic energy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) denied being a Government lackey. I can confirm he is certainly not—

Wayne David: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Now you will have to sit down again, Minister, but don’t worry: I will bring you back up. Wayne David.

Wayne David: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is being economical with the truth. But what is absolutely outrageous is that the subject under consideration is pay rises for the armed forces, but Ministers have hardly referred to it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think people will deliver figures in different ways, and the interpretation of those will always be in dispute. Minister.

Tobias Ellwood: I was just going to mention the animation—the passion—of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who has done a service to the House with his work to promote the needs and requirements of veterans. I hope that continues.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made an interesting and measured contribution. He was the first to point out that what we need to do is ask the question, “What do we want our armed forces to do?” Only by asking that question will we determine the size and the equipment we need, and that is why we are undertaking our capability review.
The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke with passion about Remembrance Sunday and the poppy appeal. It was a real honour to visit the Poppy Factory a few months ago to see the work that it is doing with veterans, and the work for Remembrance Sunday itself.
In conclusion, like all Members of the House, the Government want to ensure that our brave armed forces, those exemplary men and women who give their all for our country, continue to get what they deserve. Our forces are currently serving in 25[Official Report, 20 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 4MC.] operations around the world. They are keeping us safe and enhancing our reputation around the world. They are the best of British, and they have the right to expect the best in return. Therefore, although the need for pay discipline will remain a constant in the coming years, we remain committed to ensuring that their overall package of pay, progression and benefits continues to reflect the enormous value that we place on their work. We await the next review’s findings with interest. Members can rest assured that, as a Defence Minister, a former officer and a reservist, I am determined to do everything in my power to ensure that our people get what they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the pay of Armed Forces personnel has been capped at 1 per cent in 2017-18 and that this represents another below inflation pay settlement; further notes that the size of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and Royal Marines is below stated targets; notes that dissatisfaction with pay has been identified by service personnel as a reason for leaving their respective force; and calls on the Government to end the public sector pay cap for the Armed Forces and give Armed Forces personnel a fair pay rise.

EXITING THE EU: SECTORAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Keir Starmer: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty’s Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.
The motion is about transparency, accountability and ensuring that Parliament can do its job of scrutinising the Government properly. It is a shame that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is not here, but, assuming that he is on negotiating duties, I will not make a cheap point about that. [Interruption.] In a private conversation with him, I said that I would make that point clear at the beginning of my speech if he was not here, so it was not a cheap point.
It goes without saying that there is huge anxiety and uncertainty in the country about the impact of the Government’s Brexit approach. That is felt by businesses across the country, communities large and small, and all sectors of the economy. That is perhaps inevitable, given the size of the task ahead. The Government say that they are planning for all eventualities, but if relevant information and evidence is not published in a responsible fashion, businesses and people up and down the country will be unable to do so.
On 14 December last year, the Secretary of State revealed to the Brexit Select Committee that the Government were working on sectoral impact analyses in 57 areas—one was added later, making it 58. Thus began this battle about transparency and accountability. First the Government said that they could not even publish the list of the sectors being analysed. When my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) sought that under freedom of information legislation on 30 August this year, she was rebuffed in a response on 29 September. Then, on Monday this week, the list was published.
Looking at the list, a copy of which I have here, two things are obvious. First, in many ways it is unremarkable, and so it could and should have been published months ago. Secondly, the wide range of sectors analysed demonstrates why it is so important for Members to see the impact assessments.

John Redwood: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the Labour party, in the many months of Brexit discussions, has found not a single way to strengthen the UK’s bargaining position or expedite the Brexit that their voters voted for?

Keir Starmer: Over the summer, I set out the Opposition’s position in relation to Brexit with great clarity, and Government Members, if they are talking to businesses, will know how warmly that has been received. That has been documented in what businesses have said and done.

Mark Francois: In the interests of clarity and transparency, what exactly is the Labour party’s policy now on remaining in the customs union after March 2019?

Keir Starmer: This has been absolutely clear from the summer. It was set out by me, and it was repeated by me in this House and in my conference speech and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in his conference speech. It is that we should seek transitional measures, because we are not going to have reached the final deal by March 2019 and that those transitional measures should be on the same basic terms as now. That means being in the single market, in a customs union, abiding by the rules and accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, exactly as I have set out many times, and there has been unity on this side about that transitional position.

Stephen Doughty: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the comments from Government Members are absurd given that the Prime Minister says one thing about no deal, the Brexit Secretary says no deal is a threat and the Home Secretary says no deal is unthinkable? The issue of transparency is crucial because we are talking about 29 million workers here—88% of the economy—and we do not know what those studies say; they should be published.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention. I was going to highlight just three sectors on the list: construction and engineering, where 2.9 million jobs are involved; medical services and social care, where 3 million jobs are involved; and pharmaceuticals, where 50,000 jobs are involved. So even taking just three of the 58 sectors, it is obvious why this is of such importance.

Anna Soubry: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Opposition that these impact assessments should be disclosed—they can be redacted—but we definitely disagree about the Labour party’s position. We must be very clear: it started off with the Leader of the Opposition saying article 50 should be triggered on the day after the referendum, and it has flip-flopped around since. I am delighted that the Labour party has now come across to my way of thinking: we should have a transition period, retaining our membership of the single market and the customs union. I hope that Labour will go further and say we need a final deal that includes the single market and customs union.

Keir Starmer: I hope to see the right hon. Lady in the Lobby with us later if that is how she feels about this motion.
I must say that there were at least five different versions of the Government position over the summer, and it is almost impossible to reconcile the Foreign Secretary’s approach with that of others in the Cabinet. Everybody knows it and is commenting on it. To claim there is unity in the Cabinet is a pretence.

Tom Brake: I welcome the transparency the right hon. and learned Gentleman has provided on the transition period, but what is Labour’s policy for after that period?

Keir Starmer: I have been very clear about that as well and about what the priorities are—jobs and the economy—and that we should retain the benefits of the single market and customs union.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: The last debate got fractious just before 4 o’clock because interventions might or might not have been taken; I have taken pretty well all of them so far, but none of them has yet been about the motion. [Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for saying that.

Sarah Wollaston: In response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, may I formally request that these documents be released not only to the Exiting the European Union Committee, but to all relevant Select Committees, as requested by the Select Committee on Health yesterday?

Keir Starmer: I will come to that, because we gave some thought to the process, and if the principle of disclosure is agreed, we are open to a discussion about exactly how that works. The Brexit Select Committee seemed the obvious Committee, but there is clearly interest in other Select Committees in the subject matter, not least medical services and social care, which I know will be of great interest to the hon. Lady.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to press on, because I have barely got a sentence in. I will give way later but I am really not making much progress at all.
The list of sectors was initially not disclosed, but it was then disclosed on Monday. In her freedom of information request of 30 August this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) also asked for the scope and the terms of reference of each sectoral analysis. This request too has been rebuffed, in a letter of 29 September. This time, the Secretary of State’s Department relied on two grounds: first, that to disclose the terms of reference would prejudice relations between the UK and another state and, secondly, that it would prejudice the formulation and development of Government policy. The first of those grounds seems a bit far-fetched, to say the least. The scope and the terms of reference are not even being disclosed.
The second of those grounds is surprising, coming from the current Secretary of State. Back in December 1999, he was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when the freedom of information legislation was before Parliament. Then, when he was on the Back Benches, he intervened strongly in the debates. He said:
“I do not approach the issue from the perspective of a freedom of information enthusiast…my test is whether it makes democracy and government work better.”
He then said:
“The class exemption applying to all information relating to formulation and development of Government policy, including factual information, is a ludicrous blanket exemption.”—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 774.]
Today, from the Front Bench, he relies on that ludicrous blanket exemption that he rallied against from the Back Benches.
I shall now turn to the analyses and reports themselves. In a joint letter dated 11 October this year and supported by 120 Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) sought the disclosure of all the sectoral analyses. I salute their work in pressing the Government time and again on this issue. The Government have responded by saying that the impact assessments could not be disclosed because to do so would undermine the UK’s negotiating position. That is an important consideration, and I have accepted all along that the Government should not put into the public domain any information that would undermine our negotiating position. However, this requires some probing and testing.
The House will recall that when we, the Opposition, were calling for the Government to publish a Brexit plan this time last year, our request was initially refused. It was claimed that—guess what?—to do so would undermine our negotiating position. Thus, in an exchange on 7 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) pressed the Secretary of State to reveal the Government’s plan. The Secretary of State said:
“It is no good creating a public negotiating position, which has the simple effect of destroying our ability to negotiate—full stop.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2016; Vol. 616, c. 1264.]
The Prime minister then coined the phrase “no running commentary” and stuck to it like glue. And so it went on until 7 December last year, when we won an Opposition day motion calling on the Government to publish a plan. The publication of that plan has not undermined our negotiating position, although its contents might well have done so.
On the claim that any disclosure will undermine our negotiating position, I also bear in mind what the Secretary of State said to the House of Lords EU External Affairs Sub-Committee last night when he was pressed on this. He said:
“I don’t think you should overestimate what’s in them. They’re not economic models of each sector, they are looking at how much of it depends on European Union markets versus other markets, what other opportunities may be, what the regulatory structures are, all those sorts of things that inform the negotiation, but they are not predictions. So I wouldn’t overestimate what they are.”

Caroline Lucas: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we might ask how the Ministers even know whether the reports will undermine our negotiating position given that they told the Exiting the European Union Committee that they had not even read them? One does wonder why on earth they are now going to such lengths to protect them.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention and will come to that very point. Playing down the significance of the reports last night, while playing up the need to keep them absolutely secret is an interesting strategy that needs to be tested. The Government’s claim about not disclosing the reports or any part of them also raises some pretty fundamental questions. First, who has actually read the 58 reports? On 25 October, the Secretary of State, under questioning from the Brexit Select Committee, indicated that the Prime Minister  will know the summary outcomes, but she will “not necessarily” have read them. Later in the same sitting, he indicated that the Cabinet had not seen the analyses, saying:
“They will have seen summary outcomes. That is all.”
The impact assessments that we are debating this afternoon have not been read in full by the Cabinet.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. and learned Friend may also be interested to know that when the Health Committee asked the Health Secretary yesterday whether he had read the four reports of great relevance to the NHS and public health, he seemed rather unsure. Given the huge negative impact that Brexit will have, particularly on our NHS workforce, is it not extraordinary that the Health Secretary cannot remember if he has even read the reports?

Keir Starmer: If the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was right in his evidence to the Brexit Select Committee, it appears that the Health Secretary has not read the reports because he has not had them.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was asked by the Brexit Select Committee whether the reports had been passed to the Scottish Government. In reply to a question from the SNP spokesperson, the Secretary of State said that he did not know whether they had been shared with the Scottish Government. These reports, which are in lockdown and cannot be seen and not a word of which can be disclosed, have not been read by the Cabinet, and nobody knows whether they have been disclosed to the Scottish Government, yet nothing can be made available to this House.

Catherine West: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a hint of almost religious fervour here? If we keep our eyes closed and our ears blocked, perhaps everything will be okay as we leap off the cliff into the unknown.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention.

Joanna Cherry: For clarification, it was me who asked the Secretary of State whether he would share the impact assessment on the Scottish economy with the Scottish Government. After I corrected him that it has in fact not been shared, he went on to give an undertaking that it will be shared with the Scottish Government. If that particular assessment will be shared, should not the other assessments be shared with the other relevant sectors?

Keir Starmer: The hon. and learned Lady makes a good point. If some of these reports can or have been shared with some Governments or Administrations, there is simply no basis for arguing that they cannot be shared with this Parliament, through the Select Committees.

Paul Farrelly: I recently asked the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport what sector assessments her Department was involved in, and she answered, “None.” However, I count at least 10 areas in which her Department is involved—or perhaps it is not involved. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that prompts questions about how the Government are co-ordinating the production of the reports?

Keir Starmer: I can see that if I keep giving way, I will get answers that relate to every Department and find out that in fact none of them has seen, analysed, read or considered the impact assessments.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to try to make some progress.
The Secretary of State made it clear that the Cabinet had only seen the summary outcomes. If that position has changed, I am sure that the Minister will intervene to clarify the position. If the assessments are so important, the relevant Cabinet members ought to read about the sectors that concern them. It is extraordinary that that has not happened. It is also extraordinary because it raises the question of who is making the decision that these reports cannot be disclosed. Who is making that decision? It cannot be the relevant Cabinet members, because they have not read the reports. When he appeared before the Brexit Select Committee, the Secretary of State was pretty hazy about that:
“The Government do. To a very large extent it comes to me, but it would depend on which department it is”.
That is interesting, given that the other Departments have not read the reports. He continued:
“Some of the stuff is also held in other departments.”
Who is the decision maker on the non-disclosure of these reports? Is it the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union? If not, who is it? [Interruption.] I see that instructions may be being taken.
Is there a record of the decision being made? It is a significant decision to withhold information from Parliament. Is a record made of the decision for each report? Where is that record? What criteria are actually applied?
A number of Members, including me, have experience of handling sensitive information—in my case, very sensitive information about very serious criminal offences—and everyone who has been in that position knows that a blanket ban can be justified only if no lesser form of publication is possible. Blanket bans are very rare. Even in the field of counter-terrorism, where there is highly sensitive material, blanket bans are very rare and the Government will normally find a way of publishing some of the material in an acceptable form. The current situation is extremely unusual, even for sensitive material.
Has consideration been given to redacting some of the sensitive material? Has consideration been given to providing a summary to Parliament? That is not uncommon in sensitive criminal cases. Can the gist not be given, or are we seriously expected to believe that not one paragraph, not one sentence, not one word can be disclosed to anyone in this House?

Bernard Jenkin: I am listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I can only conclude that it is foolish and irresponsible to have called this debate. He knows there is a blanket ban on disclosing advice to Ministers—that is in the ministerial code and the civil service code, and it is absolutely standard. It is normal for Select Committees to request information themselves, rather than to get the official Opposition to do it on their behalf. This is game playing.

Keir Starmer: I am surprised by that intervention, given the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, the right hon. and learned Member for  Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). The concern is shared on both sides of the House.
The intervention of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is typical of what has been going on for 16 or 17 months. Every time somebody raises a legitimate question, it is suggested that they are somehow frustrating or undermining the process. It is not unlike the interventions I took a year ago when I suggested that the plan should be published. The interventions were exactly the same.
This is lockdown, a blanket ban. If the exemption for ministerial advice is being relied on, it is curious that it is not mentioned as the ground being relied on in the letter in response to the freedom of information request. That is why we have brought this motion to the House—

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to press on.
You will have seen today’s Order Paper, Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming from someone who thinks that we should catapult Parliament into 21st century, the wording of our motion is a little odd. The motion borrows widely from parliamentary procedure used to require Ministers to lay before the House or a Committee a specific document. “Erskine May” says the following:
“Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion... the power to send for papers by means of a motion for unopposed return extends to papers which are in the possession of Ministers or which Ministers have the authority to obtain.”
That procedure has widely been used for many decades—the Opposition Whips tell me it has been used for many centuries. If anyone doubts the procedure, they should see on page 3 of today’s Order Paper that the Home Secretary has used the same procedure in relation to a different report.
What is important about this procedure is that we believe this is a binding motion, and that makes it—we hope—impossible for the Government to pull their usual Wednesday afternoon trick of not voting on Opposition day motions or not taking any notice of them. That is why we have chosen the procedure that we have. But let me be clear: our motion does not require blanket publication without further consideration. Instead, it would require that the documents covered in the list should be provided to the Brexit Select Committee—or other Select Committees if the Government’s concern is that that is too limited and these things ought to go to all the Select Committees. We are very open to that discussion, but these documents should go to the Brexit Select Committee. Then it would be for that Committee—or any other Select Committee—to decide which documents should and should not be published. It would also fall to that Committee to decide in what form publication should occur.
Members may ask why we have chosen the Brexit Select Committee. We have done so because it is a cross-party Committee; it has a lot of expertise and support staff; and it has a Government majority, so the Opposition cannot be accused of being party political here. It is a trusted and responsible Committee.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will give way in a minute. As I have said, we are open to hearing from the Government if they have alternative mechanisms or procedures to allow publication in an appropriate fashion. We are not wedded to the form we have put forward. We are wedded to challenging the blanket approach that the Government have taken.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am one Member of this House who welcomes the use of a 19th century procedure to hold the Government to account. I have one question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman: why is he asking for this information for the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union without a formal motion having been passed by that Committee to request these papers?

Keir Starmer: Because that is not necessary and this is an important motion, and because in recent weeks we have seen contempt for motions in this House—week after week on Opposition day motions—from a Government who are too weak to turn up or too weak to accept the outcome. Therefore we have chosen a procedure that is binding on this Government.
Only a weak Government push Parliament away and ignore the facts. It should not require an arcane parliamentary procedure to force the Government to release these documents, but after 10 months of trying that is what Parliament now has to do. The current impasse prevents Parliament doing its job, undermines accountability and is inconsistent with transparency. The Government should support the motion before the House today.

Robin Walker: This is an important issue, and we have always taken incredibly seriously our commitment to transparency in the negotiations, but we also take incredibly seriously our commitment to the national interest and to the vote in this House last December which concluded that we should not publish anything that undermines it.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: In a moment.
We have always tried to strike the right balance between those two commitments, and we intend to continue to do that in our response to the motion before us. I shall start by taking each part of the motion in turn.

Seema Malhotra: rose—

Robin Walker: Let me at least respond to the motion; I will then give way to the hon. Lady.
The first part of the motion calls for Ministers to publish the list of sectors that have been analysed. As the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), acknowledged, that has already been done—it was done before the motion was tabled.

Keir Starmer: I do acknowledge that. To explain, we were advised by the parliamentary authorities that that  needed to be included in the motion in order for the second part to be triggered. I acknowledge, though, that that list was published on Monday.

Robin Walker: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s acknowledgement. As he says, that list was published in response to the Lords EU External Affairs Sub-Committee report on Brexit and the trade in goods. A copy was placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available for all to see.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: In a moment.
As set out in the document we published, we estimate that the 58 sectors covered account for around 88% of the UK economy, so they provide a comprehensive framework from which to analyse the entire economy. We believe that that approach to structuring our analysis has helped us to cover all relevant parts of the economy. Given that that list has been published, we feel that the first part of the motion has been addressed. The second part of the motion calls for the impact assessments arising from the sectoral analyses to be provided to the Exiting the European Union Committee.

Seema Malhotra: rose—

Robin Walker: I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady, who serves on the Committee, on that point.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Minister confirm that the list of sectors was not published directly to the House in a ministerial statement, despite more than 120 MPs calling for its publication? Will he also confirm that Parliament’s votes in October and December last year, to which he referred, were on Opposition-day motions?

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I bring the Minister back in, I just want to let those Members who wish to speak know that there will be a five-minute limit after the Front-Bench speakers.

Robin Walker: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady what I have already said about the form of the document’s publication. Yes, it was an Opposition-day motion, but interestingly it was a Government amendment on an Opposition day which the Opposition accepted and which was supported by both sides of the House. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has repeated his acknowledgement of that principle today.
I wish to take a moment to highlight several conflicting responsibilities for Ministers with respect to the request that impact assessments be published.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is it the Minister’s understanding from what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said from the Front Bench that not only did he not bother to consult the Select Committee members before he made his proposal, but that he does not appear to have consulted the Chairman of that Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), yet he has drawn up this wheeze as a way of trying to get these documents out anyway?

Robin Walker: I am not going to speak for the Opposition Front-Bench team, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s concerns seriously, because what is being proposed needs to be checked against a number of significant issues relating to the national interest and, indeed, the responsibilities of Ministers and the Crown in respect of the information that we hold.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: If I may, I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
The Government recognise that Parliament does have rights relating to the publication of documents, which is one of the reasons why we have always been as open as possible with Parliament. In this case, though, the Opposition have taken an approach based on an obscure parliamentary rule that has not been in general use for these purposes since the 19th century. When it has been used, it has been mostly to ensure the publication of information that is now provided to Parliament by the Government regularly and as a matter of course.

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and persuasive argument. I notice a flurry of activity on the Labour Benches while the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), is asked to confirm his interest in this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that the right process has not been followed? The right process would be for the Select Committee to discuss this, make the request and then come to this House to ask for the information. The Opposition should not try to short-circuit it. What they are doing is a misuse of the House’s processes.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. I am sure we will hear from the Chairman of the Select Committee in due course.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras knows, Ministers have a clear obligation not to disclose information when to do so would not be in the public interest. In this case, the public interest is also the national interest. The key national interest here is to ensure the best possible outcome from our negotiations with the European Union. As he accepted earlier, putting all the information in the public domain could undermine our negotiating position. Furthermore, we must consider the importance of Ministers receiving unvarnished advice without the risks of it being published. That is particularly relevant in this case given that much of the development of this analysis has helped to inform advice to Ministers regarding our exit from the European Union. If the motion were to pass, we would need to reflect on these various constraints and conflicting responsibilities when it comes to passing information to the Exiting the European Union Committee.
I take note of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about looking at redaction or summary as an approach. Given the generosity of his approach in that regard, we will not be opposing the motion today. However, I do say that we need to look at the content of the analysis. As he quoted the Secretary of State’s comments before the Lords EU Committee yesterday, I point out that there has been some misunderstanding about what this sectoral analysis actually is. It is not a series of 58 economic impact assessments.

Hannah Bardell: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that he and his Government have a responsibility to tell the people of this country who voted either leave or remain what the real impact will be? If he does not, will they not turn on the people who hid the information from them? Will he stop governing in secret, and make sure that the people who are running this country and the people who voted have all of the information and the truth?

Robin Walker: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have always been clear that we have a responsibility to people on all sides of the referendum debate to deliver a successful outcome to our negotiations. However, delivering a successful outcome to our negotiations for the whole country does require keeping some information confidential for the purposes of negotiation.

James Cleverly: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is self-evidently an expert lawyer, he is quite clearly a very lacking negotiator? Putting this level of information potentially into the hands of the people with whom we are negotiating could very seriously undermine our ability to do the right thing for the British people.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes a key point. It is very important that, as we approach these negotiations, we do so with a firm view of the national interest in mind.

Anna Soubry: I am very grateful to the Minister for his excellent speech. He has told us that the Government will not seek to vote against the motion. On that basis, the motion will be passed. In that event, what will the Government then do?

Robin Walker: The Government always pay careful attention to the views of this House. As I have already pointed out, we have done so in the past and we will respond appropriately. To return to the analysis—[Interruption.] This is an important point. We have been looking at 58 sectors, as well as cross-cutting regulatory, economic and social issues to inform our negotiating position.

Keir Starmer: Will the Minister express his view on whether this is a binding motion according to the procedures of this House?

Robin Walker: It is not my job to interpret the procedures of the House; that is a matter for the House itself. As I have said, we will take note of whatever the House decides on this matter.

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the exchange that we have just heard, would it be possible to have a ruling from the Chair about the enforceability and binding nature of this motion?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The immediate answer is, no, it would not be possible at this moment to have a ruling from the Chair. The fact is that the Minister has answered the question. I appreciate that he does not like the Minister’s answer. The right  hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) asked a straight question, and the Minister gave a straight answer. It is not for the Chair to decide how the Minister should answer the question.

Robin Walker: Let me clarify for the right hon. Gentleman that we are, first and foremost—

Anna Soubry: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Order. There was nothing further to that point of order, because I have answered the point of order. If the right hon. Lady has a different point of order, I will hear it.

Anna Soubry: Madam Deputy Speaker, forgive me. The point of order, which was raised and which I raise again, is whether or not this motion, in the view of the Chair, is a binding motion. That is the question.

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. Lady knows that the Chair will not become involved in an argument between one Front Bench and the other, or one side of the House and the other. The Minister has—[Interruption.] Order! Do not shout when I am speaking from the Chair. The Minister has the floor and he has heard the points that are being made. It is for the Minister to answer those points.

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What advice might you be able to get from the Clerk of the House, perhaps during the course of this debate, on whether the motion is binding? It is important for the House to know that information. I appreciate that you might not be able to rule on it at this moment, but I would also appreciate it if we could get that advice in due course.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s advice; thank you.

Robin Walker: The House was quite keen to hear out some of this analysis, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out some of the details of what it is and what it is not. I have explained that the analysis is not a series of 58 economic impact assessments. It is a cross-sectoral analysis. It is not just work undertaken by our Department, as it draws on analysis and expertise across the whole of Government. But it is not the case—and I do not believe that this Department or any of its Ministers has ever said that it is—that there are 58 economic impact assessments that neatly summarise what all the eventualities could mean for each sector.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: I have given way once to the hon. Lady; I will not do so again.

Wera Hobhouse: We can discuss all sorts of processes and whether they will undermine negotiations, but will the Minister agree that withholding this information is now becoming counterproductive? It looks like the Government are hiding bad news.

Robin Walker: The Government will always take a careful view, and I will come to that later. We have disclosed plenty of information during this process. Where we see that it is in the national interest to do so, of course we will.
The analysis ranges from high-level, overarching analysis to much more granular-level analysis of certain product lines in specific sectors. It examines how trade is currently conducted with the EU in those sectors, and in many cases considers alternatives after we leave, as well as looking at existing precedents. The analysis is constantly evolving—as we discussed in the Select Committee just the other day—and being updated based on our discussions with industry and our negotiations with the European Union.

Peter Kyle: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it still his contention that businesses will have exactly the same benefits outside the single market and the EU as we have inside?

Robin Walker: I do not think that I have personally ever made that contention. We need to ensure that businesses have the best outcome from this whole process. With that in mind, it is important to note that this analysis is closely tied to our negotiating position. There is therefore a significant chance that it would be detrimental to our interests in negotiation to publish all the analysis in full, as the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras acknowledged.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I notice that a right hon. Gentleman is reading all your documents over your shoulder. Is it in order for somebody to read the advice that you are getting? He is doing it right now. I think that is rather out of order.

Eleanor Laing: I am extremely grateful for the protection of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It is quite in order and normal for a Member to approach the Chair. It is not normal for anyone to read my papers while I am on my feet.

Robin Walker: It has been a lively session so far.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: In a moment.
To continue informing our approach, we are conducting a comprehensive programme of engagement with businesses and third-party organisations. We are working proactively with industry and other Departments to have the best information available to negotiate from the best possible position.
We held events at Chevening House in July and September. A cross-Government business advisory group consisting of the five main business representative organisations has been established to ensure business is not only heard, but is influential throughout the process. I was with the group earlier this week. The Prime Minister chairs a quarterly business advisory council to hear directly from senior business leaders on key issues across EU exit and the wider economy. Department for  Exiting the European Union Ministers alone have undertaken a wide-ranging programme of stakeholder engagement.

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wondered, in the intervening period since the previous points of order, whether you had managed to seek advice from the Clerks on the enforceability and binding nature of this motion.

Eleanor Laing: The House will be aware that the motion before us is a Humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty. That is the motion before the House. We are currently debating that motion and it is absolutely correct that there should be differences of opinion about the effect of the motion, the way in which it should be debated and what should happen to it. At this stage, I would say only that a motion of this kind has in the past been seen as effective or binding. That does not mean that I am making a ruling at this point about the nature of the motion before us today.
I will reiterate what I said before. While it is correct for the Chair to make a ruling on what happens here in the Chamber, it is for the Government to decide how they will proceed, having considered the opinions of the House. It would, of course, be quite wrong for the Government not to pay any attention to a decision taken by the House, but the way in which the Minister interprets what he and his colleagues should do after the House has expressed an opinion is a matter not for the Chair but for the Minister.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wondered if it might be helpful to refer hon. Members to page 819 of “Erskine May”, which points out that in a recent case the Canadian House of Commons, in not entirely dissimilar circumstances, viewed it as a breach of privilege for the Government to fail to provide information when asked for it by the House.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for directing me to page 819 of “Erskine May”, which I will look at as soon as I have an opportunity so to do, but he will be aware of the rules on privilege, as I am, and the way in which those rules can be interpreted. Like him, not long ago I served for many weeks on a Committee considering the way in which privilege can be applied. If I were to say that it is a grey area, that would not be an exaggeration. There is no black and white in the way in which privilege is applied. But I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing to my attention to that particular point in “Erskine May”.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. “Erskine May” is written in black and white. It makes it absolutely clear, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) mentioned—I am partially giving you time to read page 819 in case you need to, Madam Deputy Speaker—that if the House chose to, it could refer each and every individual Minister who chose to ignore the decision of the House to the Committee on Privileges, and they could then be suspended from membership of the House.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me time. I must say it would not matter whether “Erskine May” was written in black and  white, or green and yellow, or purple and orange. The fact is that the rules on privilege are not a matter that can be decided immediately without consideration of all of the circumstances. I am not going to make a ruling here and now about the way in which the Minister and his colleagues should interpret what is happening in the House today.

Iain Duncan Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. “Erskine May” is quite clear. The reference to the Canadian position was in the event that the Government chose to ignore what the House had said and called for. The Government have made it clear already, in the Minister’s opening remarks, that they have not chosen to ignore this particular outcome, whatever that outcome is. That is clear. The word “ignore” is very clear. It means to disregard and to refuse to reflect on. The Government have made it clear that they will not ignore it and therefore this tautological debate should now end.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his point of order. The difference of opinion between him, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), whom I can hear making further points on my right, simply proves the point that I have made to the House, which is that privilege is not a black and white matter. Privilege and the way in which it is interpreted is a matter that takes some consideration, and I reiterate that I will not make any ruling from the Chair which has an effect right now on this Minister in this Chamber. But I am now making a ruling that this is a short debate, that there are many matters to be discussed, and that I have a long list of names of people who wish to participate in this debate, and I will take no further tautological points of order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say, and I suspect that everyone else wants to hear what the Minister has to say.

Robin Walker: I am grateful you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is good to know that someone wants to hear what the Minister has to say.
DExEU Ministers have been engaging with businesses up and down the country. That includes attendance at 50 roundtables and over 250 bilateral meetings, as well as many more with other Departments. Those interactions help to inform and supplement our analysis.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Walker: I will give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who I promised to give way to, and then to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). I am afraid that that will then be it.

Jonathan Edwards: The Minister has confirmed in the debate that a report has been prepared on the impact on the Scottish economy. Has a similar report been prepared on the impact on the Welsh economy? If so, has it been shared with Welsh Ministers? If a report has not been prepared, why is there not such a Welsh report?

Robin Walker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I made earlier about the nature of those reports. I did not say that there were reports on the Scottish or Welsh economies; I said that there were cross-cutting reports,  based on sectors across the whole of the UK. But, of course, there is, within the Joint Ministerial Committee process, the opportunity to discuss with the Government the analysis we are conducting, and we want to make sure that that can move forward.

Catherine McKinnell: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: If the hon. Lady will allow me to finish the point on business engagement, I will be happy to give way, as I promised to do.
These interactions with business in every part of the country help to inform and supplement our analysis. It is an important point, which should not be glossed over lightly, that much of the information that businesses share with the Government on these issues is highly commercially sensitive. They have a right and an expectation that that information will be treated in the utmost confidence, and in none of our meetings and engagements was it suggested that the information provided by businesses could be published as part of a Government analysis.

Catherine McKinnell: The Minister must accept that the impact of Brexit will not be uniform across the country, which is why the Chancellor acknowledged that the Government have not only carried out sectoral impact assessments but looked at regions. Will the Minister explain what information the Government will release about the impact on different regions of the UK, so that we can not only understand the impact of Brexit but prepare for it?

Eleanor Laing: Order. In addition to not having lots of tautological points of order, we will also not have any more extremely long interventions. Short interventions are—[Interruption.] We will not have any more extremely long interventions, because it is simply not fair to the people who want to speak later in the debate.

Robin Walker: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would say to the hon. Lady that I have spoken about the nature of our analysis. This motion refers to sectoral analysis, and that is what we are focusing on today. However, I do want to come to the issue here, and the motion also speaks about the Exiting the European Union Committee.

Chris Bryant: On that point, will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will give me one moment, I should say that I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and perhaps from the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, what discussions the latter had with the Select Committee before this motion was tabled. Perhaps the Chair of the Committee, in his comments later on, could provide some suggestions to the House as to how the Committee could safeguard the confidentiality of information that might be sensitive or prejudicial.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Robin Walker: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point, but this is the final intervention I will accept.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear to the House, whether, when this motion is carried today, the Government will provide the analyses to the Committee, as demanded by the House, or not?

Robin Walker: The motion has not yet been carried. I will absolutely take note of the decisions of this House, as Ministers always do, and we will respond in due course.

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Hannah Bardell: rose—

Robin Walker: I will not give way again, I am afraid.
The Government have consistently published information where we believe it is in the national interest to do so. We have already published 14 papers to address the current issues in the talks and to set out building blocks for the relationship that we would like to see with the EU both as we leave and in future. Those papers represent some of the hard work and detailed thinking that has been going on across Whitehall over the past 12 months. In addition, we have published technical notes shared with the European Union and may agree further joint publications with the EU as part of the ongoing negotiations.
But we must not forget that the House has voted repeatedly not to disclose material that could damage the United Kingdom’s position in negotiations with the European Union. Not only is that the approach taken by the UK—it is also the approach taken by the EU in its negotiations. The EU’s document, “Transparency in EU trade negotiations”, says:
“A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU.”
That once again drives home the need for a balance between transparency and securing the best outcome in the negotiations.
As the House will understand, many thousands of documents are being prepared across Government with regard to our exit from the European Union.

Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robin Walker: I will not give way to my right hon. Friend again.
The release of some of those documents would not undermine our negotiating position, although others might have more of an impact. The House will appreciate that the more information that is shared more widely, the less secure our negotiating position and the harder it becomes to secure the right deal for the British people. The House has the right to require the release of documents. However, I sincerely hope that in what is requested, and how much is requested, by the Opposition spokesman, the Select Committee and the House, they will guarantee the necessary confidentiality and be mindful of the job that Ministers need to do. That job is to secure the vital national interests of the United Kingdom as we negotiate our departure from the European Union.

Peter Grant: I welcome the chance to contribute to this debate. I hope that we can concentrate on the fundamentally important matter at hand. This debate is not about which party’s position on Brexit has been more chaotic; it is about the importance of making sure that Parliament and the public have information to which they are entitled to hold us all to account. A few minutes ago, I was reminded of what a pity it is that these analyses were not available before 23 June 2016.

Hannah Bardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and those in the leave campaign had a moral and an ethical duty to do this work and to give a proper timescale, as we called for at the time of the Brexit debate? Does he think that the assessments were not published because the Government are scared of the truth or because they would not fit on the side of a bus?

Peter Grant: I suspect that it may have been all the above and more reasons besides.
Is it not ironic that yet again, in response to a decision that was supposed to restore sovereignty to Parliament, for those who believe in such an idea, it now appears that even the Parliament that exercises sovereignty on behalf of Her Majesty does not have the right to instruct the Government to make representations to Her Majesty on our behalf? We can ask, and the Government can simply ignore—well, they cannot ignore, but they can say, “No, we’re no’ doing it,” which apparently is not the same as ignoring. What an utter shambles of a way to run a sweetie shop, never mind a country.
I have been a very long-standing supporter of open government and freedom of information. I remember as an opposition SNP councillor being in the strange position of enthusiastically supporting legislation proposed by the then Labour-Lib Dem coalition in the Scottish Parliament against complaints from Labour councillors that it would somehow undermine the working of the council. I believe that improved public availability of information always leads to better government. Occasions when information needs to be restricted, or some information needs to be redacted, should be seen very much as the exception rather than the rule.

Caroline Lucas: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a legal case pending, which my colleague in the European Parliament, Molly Scott Cato, is leading. Does he agree that rather than going through all the extra work, time and taxpayers’ money involved in fighting a legal case, the Government should just show us what it is in the public interest to show us now?

Peter Grant: I was going to say that, not having seen the information, I am at a disadvantage compared with the Cabinet, but I am not convinced that I am, because I do not think most of them have seen it either. I am perfectly prepared to accept that some of it—perhaps quite a lot of it—cannot be made public, but I do not think a document exists that cannot be made public in some form. If the Government really want to give the public information, there are always ways in which details can be removed.
The comment has been made that we are talking about public information, paid for by the public and produced by a public organisation, which exists only for the benefit of the public. I always take the view that information should be disclosed where possible and withheld only where necessary. My view of freedom of information was eloquently expressed 250 years ago, and I am pleased that Madam Deputy Speaker is still here to hear this, although she is no longer in the Chair:
“Here’s freedom to them that wad read,
Here’s freedom to them that wad write,
There’s nane ever fear’d that the truth should be heard,
But they whom the truth would indite.”
I appreciate that for some Members, that might be a difficult thing to think about just now.
I have always been convinced that far too many public bodies have hidden behind statutory exemptions in freedom of information legislation, not to protect the interests of the public but to protect the interests of those who withhold the information. That seems to have played a significant part in the Government’s thought processes in this instance. A member of the Government originally claimed that even to confirm that the analyses existed would somehow fatally undermine the UK’s negotiating position with the European Union. It is hard to see how anybody could make the UK’s negotiating position any more untenable than it already is, but let us look at how making any of the information available might weaken the UK’s position.
It seems to me that there are three possible scenarios. In scenario 1, the secret information shows that the UK’s position is a lot stronger than any of us suspected—I do not know; that might be possible—so instead of negotiating from a position of weakness, the UK is negotiating from a position of considerable strength. How does it weaken our negotiating position if those on the other side of the table think that we are strong, rather than weak? It does not, so in scenario 1, it is in the UK’s interests for the European Union to have the information.
In scenario 2, the analysis simply confirms what everybody knows and what analysis from everybody else under the sun has already indicated, which is that leaving the European Union is seriously bad for the UK economy, that it is seriously bad for us socially and culturally and that it will weaken our reputation worldwide, emboldening other potential trade partners to push for ever more difficult and damaging trade deals and ensuring that we have to go cap in hand to look for them.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is at all possible to have a worse fishing policy and to do more damage to the Scottish fishing industry outside the EU than in it? Why does he not speak up for Brexit, because it has lots of great features?

Peter Grant: I do not think that it is possible for any Government to sell out Scotland’s fishing industry in the way the UK Government did 50 years ago. That is a matter of public record, but it could not be made known to the fishing communities or anyone else for 30 years, because it was covered by the Official Secrets Act at the time. That is the reason why Governments withhold information for as long as possible—not in the interests of open government, but to protect themselves from proper public scrutiny.
I return to scenario 2. If it shows exactly what everybody already knows, how can producing more evidence to confirm what we already know possibly damage the UK’s position? It cannot, so scenario 2 cannot cause any damage.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you are able to rule on this matter before any more confusion is added to the debate. Is it your understanding that the motion as presented, if carried, leaves open to Her Majesty’s Government the timing of when they choose to lay these matters before Parliament and that, if that is the case, the Government could lay these matters before Parliament after the negotiations?

Lindsay Hoyle: The answer is that it is for the Government, not for me, to respond on that point. There has been a question about whether this is binding. What is binding is the need to carry forward the debate. Let us have no more ado.

Peter Grant: The third scenario—many of us are increasingly convinced that this is what has happened—is that the detailed analysis indicates that the damage caused by Brexit will be even worse than any of us previously feared. Yes, that would weaken and fatally undermine the UK’s negotiating position. It may well be that the analysis shows that Brexit is such a catastrophic decision that we should not do it at all. What kind of Government in possession of that information would choose to hide it, rather than to act on it? It seems to me that the only scenario in which releasing any of the information can possibly undermine the UK’s position is if that information shows that the damage caused by Brexit is worse than any previous analysis has indicated.

Angus MacNeil: Is there not an unattributed briefing from a Minister who has said, “We either destroy the Conservative party, or we destroy the country”—that was their choice of words—and in this case are they not choosing, by hiding these documents, to destroy the country rather than to destroy the Conservative party?

Peter Grant: I could not comment on that quote, but throughout the Brexit shambles there have been plenty of instances when it has been very clear that the Government are acting in the interests of the unity of the Conservative party, rather than in the interests of the United Kingdom—not that the attempt to retain unity in the Conservative party has been too successful.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Brexit got into a real muddle when he was asked whether the Government intended to make any of this information available to the devolved Governments and in particular, under questioning by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), whether the assessment of the impact on Scotland would be shared with the Scottish Government. At first, he seemed to cast doubt on whether such an assessment existed at all, and then he admitted that it probably existed, but he was not sure it would ever be shared with anybody. Then he assumed it had already been shared with the Scottish Government—it still has not been shared, by the way—and, finally, he acknowledged that it had not been shared yet but eventually would be.
By a process of elimination—or, perhaps, by accident—the Secretary of State therefore managed to say the same as his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland said to the Scottish Affairs Committee 24 hours earlier. It is concerning, but not surprising, that the Minister appears to have departed from that today. It seems that as soon as two Ministers agree on something, a third has got to disagree with it almost on principle. The fact is that, even a week later, the information has still not been shared—none of it. The relevant Minister in the Scottish Government, Mike Russell, has had to write to the Secretary of State to remind him of the undertaking that was given and to ask for that information to be shared so that, for example, discussions in the JMC can be more meaningful than they have been until now.
Another possible reason for the Secretary of State’s reluctance to share any of the information comes from an answer he gave later in the same evidence session last week:
“I am not a great fan of mathematical models. They are almost always wrong.”
He referred to a revelation from Norman Lamont who, when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, was told by the Treasury that he would become the most unpopular man in Britain and that that was the only thing Treasury staff ever told him that turned out to be correct. The Secretary of State went on to say that, sadly, the Norman Lamont story was true:
“I am afraid it is the truth. These models are never right.”
The models produced by the Government at the public expense are never right. That will make for an interesting Budget in a couple of weeks’ time. What kind of a defence is it to tell a parliamentary Committee, “The reason why we will not give you access to information that has been produced at great public cost is that we do not believe it any more than you do.”?
The Government have previously refused a formal freedom of information request, as was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). They refused even to confirm whether some of these analyses existed, because they were concerned that even to confirm that such documents existed or that such analysis had taken place might lead some to take precipitate action as a result. This comes from a Government who were excessively precipitate in holding a referendum before people really knew what they were voting on. They were precipitate in triggering article 50 before they knew what it would mean, and they were precipitate in calling a general election, which did not turn out particularly well. It is therefore a bit rich for them to be concerned about anyone else acting in a precipitate manner.
I am not a scholar of Latin, but I remember as a student teacher, over 30 years ago, hearing a very experienced chemistry teacher asking a class of pupils doing experiments involving chemical elements being precipitated in a test tube whether any of them knew about precipitates in the Bible. He explained to them, because he was of a generation that could recite the Bible in English and Latin, and probably in Greek as well, that the word “precipitate” came from the Latin word “praecipitare”, and “se praecipitare” was a verb used in the Bible to describe the actions of the Gadarene swine as they launched themselves off a cliff edge.
I will never ceased to be amazed at just how many prophecies in the good book come true sooner or later. The Government have been precipitate throughout this  entire sorry affair. They have artificially, unilaterally and quite arbitrarily put immense time pressure on themselves, this Parliament and the overworked staff at the Department for Exiting the European Union and elsewhere.
It is no defence against that chaos or against the repeated display of incompetence we have had from the Government now to say that we cannot trust the public with information that exposes the full damage that the Government’s incompetence will cause. The electorate were sophisticated enough to understand after the vote in the referendum that when the Government said we could still be in the single market if we were out of the EU, they did not mean it. The electors in east London were sophisticated enough to know that when a Minister told them, “If we leave the EU, we will stop immigration from the EU and those of you who have family in Bangladesh, India or Pakistan will be able to bring them over to replace those people,” that was rubbish. The electorate were sophisticated enough to know that when someone who is now a Minister promised £357 million more for the health service, that was Boris being Boris. They were sophisticated enough to know that we never believe anything the Foreign Secretary says. Well, we do not need to be too sophisticated to realise that, I suppose.
So the electorate are sophisticated enough to known that all the promises that were made before the referendum really did not mean anything, yet they are not sophisticated enough, or educated or intelligent enough, to look at an impact assessment, or a summary of an impact assessment, and make their own decisions about the competence and the re-electability of a Government who got us into this mess in the first place.
Without even having seen this information, I believe it is not being made widely available because it demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that leaving the EU is the wrong way to go. Leaving the single market would be catastrophic for these islands and the Government should change course before they follow the Gadarene swine over that cliff edge.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. To help the Chair, can we have fewer interventions? Those Members who are on the list of speakers who have intervened I will put lower down to try to make sure we get fairness.

John Redwood: I rise to support the Government. I am delighted that they do not want me to vote against the motion. I am happy to accept their guidance on that. I am someone who usually favours full disclosure and publication of interesting information, but I urge Ministers not to reveal anything that could damage our negotiating position in any way. It is cavalier to the point of irresponsibility that the Opposition wish to have everything published in the hope that they will find something damaging to the UK position, because all they ever do is run the UK down. All they ever do is say we are wrong to want Brexit. All they ever do is say to their voters, “You made the wrong decision. We are going to block it, dilute it, slow it down. We are going to try to prevent it.” I for one am heartily sick of the complete lack of sensible co-operation with the wishes of their voters.

Chris Leslie: In the spirit of taking back control, if this Parliament insists that it wants to see documents, should it not be allowed to see them?

John Redwood: Of course it should see documents, as long as they do not harm the national interest, and it is Ministers who are charged with the duty of ensuring that the national interest is upheld. It is quite obvious that Labour Members have absolutely no wish to uphold the national interest, and whenever I debate with them they tell me that the EU is right, the EU is in a strong position and the EU will grind us down. They should be speaking up for their electors and the jobs in their constituencies, because Brexit is teeming with opportunity.
We are asked to talk about sectoral impact assessments, so let’s hear it for the fishing industry. It is going to be a much stronger, better British industry when we can have our own territorial waters and our own policy. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am struggling to hear the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that everybody wants to listen to every word he has to tell the Chamber.

John Redwood: They do not like good news, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let us consider the agricultural industry. Is it not a great tragedy that we have lost so much of our capacity to make our own food and to grow our own food where our temperate climate allows? Will not being outside the EU enable us to have an agricultural policy that allows us to be more self-sufficient, so that there are fewer food miles travelled and more jobs for British farmers? Wouldn’t that be great? Why do the Opposition not spend a bit of time thinking about how that policy might work, and what a big opportunity it will be for that sector if we develop in such a way?
Would not it be great for quite a number of the sectors in our country if we got that £12 billion a year back as soon as possible and started spending it in the UK? I thought the Opposition understood that if you spend more money in a country, you create more jobs and more economic activity. When it comes to the money we send to Brussels, all we ever hear from them is, “Let’s keep sending them the money. Let’s do it next year, the year after, the year after that. Can we find a way to send the money for another three years after we’ve left?” It is outrageous that they want to give our money away in this way.

Chris Ruane: The right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Wales, and I think that he sent £120 million back from Cardiff to London. Will he now support calls from the Opposition to ensure that Wales does not lose out on the money it is currently receiving from Brussels?

John Redwood: Wales did not lose out, because I wanted tax cuts for Welsh voters as well as for English voters, and that was the whole point of what we were doing; and we had more than adequately funded the health service, where I increased the amount of money, which the Labour Government in Wales do not do. I think my record is rather better than theirs when it comes to providing proper provision for the health service in Wales.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

John Redwood: What we need to do is to have a proper debate on the sectoral impacts and look at the many positives, so that Opposition Members can debate in the way I am and talk about the opportunities for our country and the way our economy can be better, rather than continue in the depressingly negative way they always do, where they are desperate to find some bad information. They have come up with two things at the moment, which are clearly misleading, but they are constantly repeating them. First, they say that planes will not fly in April 2019, after we have left, without a special agreement and sending lots of money to the EU. I was very pleased the other day to see that Willie Walsh of British Airways made it very clear, in his professional view, that the planes will fly—and of course they will. There is no way Britain is going to stop German, French and Spanish planes coming into UK airports the day after we have left the EU, even without an agreement, and in their turn they will not want to stop our planes going there, with our tourists and with the people who want to go and spend money in their country.

Hannah Bardell: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

John Redwood: Then there is another one that they are constantly telling us about, which is that there will be lorries queuing all the way back from Dover. I am not quite sure how that would work because it would mean that they were queuing in the sea. But of course, given modern, electronic frontiers, there is absolutely no reason why there should be huge queues.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

John Redwood: We can have a system of authorised economic operators, developing the existing system, and it will be quite easy to speed the lorries through, and if we still have to impose tariffs because there is no agreement, we will be able to do that electronically, without there being a lorry jam.

Charlie Elphicke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the other side talk about queues at the port because they actually hope that Brexit will be a disaster for this country? They want to stop Brexit and they want the worst for this country. They should put Britain first.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is always doom and gloom. It is always about what can go wrong.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Karin Smyth: rose—

John Redwood: One of my worries about these sectoral studies that Ministers are agonising about—

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it disingenuous or misleading Parliament to suggest that the £120 million you did not spend in Wales was the same as £120 million of tax cuts for the people of Wales when they did not get tax cuts in that year?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order. I call John Redwood.

John Redwood: I think that is a silly point, because there were tax cuts from the Government and it was very important that we had a sensible Budget after we had made full provision.
The Opposition are always running things down. My worry about these sectoral studies is that there is a tendency amongst some of the Government advisers, and consultants to want to highlight every conceivable thing that could go wrong and lots of inconceivable things that could not conceivably go wrong, because that is how they make their money or that is what they think they are there to do. They do not risk-assess, there are very few genuine risks that need to be managed properly, and we still have 15 months to manage them. If necessary, we can manage them for ourselves without even needing the agreement of the EU.
I look forward to Ministers making a judicious response to this debate. I do not want them to share any information that undermines our position. I just live in hope that one day the Opposition will wake up to all those voters who wanted Brexit, and understand that they need to be positive and sympathetic to the British Government view, not to the EU view.

Hilary Benn: Passions are running rather high, but this is a deadly serious business. This is about transparency and the need for Parliament to have the information and facts it requires in order to do its job. I raised this question with the Secretary of State when I was first elected as Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee. I asked him how he proposed to handle the sharing of information. In a letter to me in October last year, he stated:
“There is an important balance to strike between transparency and confidentiality and information sharing will need to be considered in close detail.”
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) spoke to me about this issue yesterday, and I pointed out to him that our Committee’s first report, published on 11 January this year, referred to the economic assessments that the Government were undoubtedly undertaking. It stated:
“In the interests of transparency, these should be published alongside the government’s plan in so far as it does not compromise the government’s negotiating hand.”
I make that point because the Committee accepted—indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted this from the Dispatch Box—that there might be certain information that the Government do not wish to put in the public domain and that it would not be right to do so, but that is not to say that nothing should be published, or that there is no method for sharing information with Select Committees in confidence.
Let me give an example. We are told that there is a Treasury analysis of the economic benefits to the UK of future free trade agreements with non-EU member   states. The existence of that paper was revealed by Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform back in June. According to the Financial Times of 15 September,
“it is said to show that the value of new free trade agreements would be significantly less than the economic cost of leaving the customs union.”
None of us knows whether that is the case or not, because the Government have chosen thus far not to disclose that information to us. Yet that is information that we really ought to know, given that the Government have taken an absolutely major policy decision—that we should leave the customs union—without any analysis being shared with this House about the consequences or costs, or indeed the benefits, of that decision.
First, like all those who have been Ministers, I looked at—I will not pretend to have read them in their entirety—all the impact assessments that passed before my eyes during my time as a Minister. On all other matters, including relatively minor ones, the Government produce an impact assessment that is shared with Parliament and the public, so it really is extraordinary that for the single most important decision that this country, as a result of the referendum, has taken since the end of the second world war, the Government have published nothing by way of an impact assessment.
Secondly, there is the question—raised very effectively, I thought, by my right hon. and learned Friend—of who decides whether they can be published. I understand why Ministers told the Select Committee in evidence that they have not been able to read them all, and I have confessed that I did not read every single word of them when I was a Minister. Indeed, the Secretary of State told us that the analyses contain “excruciating detail”. He also confirmed that the Cabinet has not seen them. It could not be right for civil servants to make the decision about what should or should not be released; it clearly must be Ministers. The Select Committee has been told that a certain analysis will now be shared with the Scottish Government—the point made a moment ago—so I presume that that decision was taken by Ministers.

Heidi Alexander: My right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Chair of the Select Committee, asked what safeguards could be put in place to ensure that information that would be detrimental to the UK’s negotiating position is not released, and I wonder whether he could comment on that.

Hilary Benn: I shall come on to that point at the end of my remarks.
Thirdly, it is hard to believe that all the material has the potential to undermine our negotiating position. I would be intrigued to know how reports on museums, galleries and libraries, and crafts or real estate could contain information of such sensitivity that it would create difficulties for the Secretary of State when he next meets Mr Barnier.

John Redwood: On property, if there was an entirely bogus forecast of big job losses and a collapse in commercial property, it would be silly to publish that, as, first, it would be wrong and, secondly, it would be negative for our position.

Hilary Benn: It is not for me to argue the Government’s case, but if it were a bogus forecast I would be very surprised if the Government would have put it in an assessment they had drawn up—[Interruption] Please do not tempt me on this subject. This point raises the question of why, thus far, the Government have had a blanket policy of non-publication.
Having said all that, I welcome the spirit of what the Minister said today, even if I and—I venture to suggest—the House are not absolutely clear what was being offered when he helpfully said that the Government will not be opposing the motion. In that same spirit, I say to him, in conclusion, that if the Government comply with the motion, as they should if it is carried, and pass the information to us, I am sure the Select Committee—I hope the members who are here do not mind my saying this—would be very happy to discuss with Ministers how the material should be handled. We would be happy to discuss what can be published—to come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander)—and where the Committee might share the Government’s view that there might be some difficulties if it were put into the public domain. I hope that that offer to the Minister is helpful as the Government give effect to the motion, if, indeed, it is carried by the House this evening.

Anna Soubry: I rise to support the motion. I hope that the motion is put to the vote and I shall be walking through the Lobby in favour of it. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to be bound by the terms of the motion, I gently say to them that we are not messing about here any more. This is grown-up, serious stuff. This is no longer a debate on the fringes of politics, where people can follow long-held ideological dreams they have had for decades. The country has voted— 52% of those who voted voted to leave the EU—and people like me accept that we are going to leave the EU. But I am not going to stand by and see the future of my children’s generation and the grandchildren I hope will follow being trashed and ruined without any form of debate and disclosure as to the consequences and, arguably, the options that might be available as disclosed in all these documents that cover so many sectors in so many ways.
So this is grown-up, serious stuff. I say to Members on this side that the days of carping from the sidelines have gone. I say to them: “You’ve won; you’re in charge of this; now you have to face up to the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that works for everybody in this country and for generations to come.” So what’s the problem? If the Government are not going to be bound by this motion, vote against it. If you abstain, you agree to it and you will abide by it. As I have said, these are serious matters.

Hannah Bardell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Anna Soubry: I will take the extra minute.

Hannah Bardell: I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with everything the right hon. Lady is saying. She is making a very sensible and rational speech. Does she agree that the irony is that some of our colleagues who so seek to have a sovereign, more powerful,  more transparent Parliament are, by not agreeing the result of this motion, damaging democracy and the ability of Parliament and those who sit in it to do their jobs?

Anna Soubry: I agree. Let us be clear: this debate has always crossed the political divide. Many in the Labour party supported leave and many Conservatives supported remain. This transcends the normal political divide. I agree very much with the hon. Lady.
Let me explain why it is so important that we know what is in these documents. I am getting a bit of a feeling here. I rather take the view that there might be stuff in these huge impact assessments that perhaps hon. Members on this side do not want to put out into the public domain. They can and should redact every piece of commercially sensitive material in the documents, and anything that could undermine the security of our country should also be redacted. However, I am getting a rather strong feeling that, if the Government were to say that, whatever the options might be for the final deal, everything in this wonderful new post-Brexit world that awaits us was going to be brilliant and rosy, those Members who favour no deal would be the first to stand up and say to the Government, “Disclose these impact documents! Let the people see what wonders await them in this wonderful new post-Brexit world.” So what’s the problem?
I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), as he represents all those fishing men and women who live in his constituency: how on earth can he say that we should not disclose all these documents because that would undermine the negotiations if he has not seen them—or even some form of summary of them—in the first place? The implication is quite clear: there is something in them that is not to be disclosed because it might actually prick this golden bubble, this balloon, that is the promised land of Brexit. My constituents are entitled to know the consequences of the options that are available to this Government as they negotiate the transition and then, most importantly, the final deal. My constituents are concerned about their jobs, and so are the businesses in my constituency.

Stephen Doughty: Does the right hon. Lady agree that her constituents and mine have the right to know the costs of a no-deal Brexit option? The Government are refusing to answer my parliamentary questions asking how much each Department is putting aside for Brexit contingency planning and planning for a no deal. Does she agree that that information should be in the public domain?

Anna Soubry: I absolutely agree. Other hon. Members have talked about the impact that they fear this will have on their constituents and on their part of our great country, and they are right to do so. How can local authorities, businesses and chambers of commerce—and all the other people who create our country’s great economy and the jobs and prosperity that we have now and will need in the future—plan for those things and make important decisions without the necessary information? How can we as a country come together, as people say we should, to heal the divide between the  52% and the 48%? We have failed to do that so far. How can we do all those things unless we are open and frank with people and bring them into the discussion about what Brexit is going to look like and what final deal can be secured for our country?
Whatever the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) might say about Government policy, it is now clear what we want from the transition deal, thanks to the Prime Minister’s excellent Florence speech, which was widely welcomed. But let us be honest, what happened then? We heard the usual “noises off” trying to undermine her and destabilise her position. Thankfully, however, the Prime Minister has stood firm, and full credit to her for doing so. But even now, at this moment, my Government have still not worked out what their policy is for that final deal, and the usual voices continue to make their irresponsible argument for no deal and for falling off the cliff edge. That is the most dangerous thing that could possibly happen to our economy and to the generations to come.

Desmond Swayne: Why has my right hon. Friend put her name to an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that would give Parliament the power to prevent a deal?

Anna Soubry: That is absolute nonsense, if I may say so to my right hon. Friend. I hope that he might support that amendment, because at its heart is what he has told the British people he believes in. It is about taking back control in this Parliament, not relying on arguments from the right hon. Gentleman for the 19th century, who actually suggested that this Parliament might be bound by a decision in—heaven forbid—a foreign Parliament. The Canadians! I thought we had voted to take back control, and that is absolutely right. This is one of the most important decisions this country has ever made, and what Brexit will look like should be put before this House. It is a crying shame that we have had no debates, binding motions or votes on the future of our country. Future generations will judge us on that. I stood and warned people about the consequences to my party unless it stood up for everybody in this country and abandoned a hard Brexit. I was ignored, and we lost our majority. Millions of people feel that they are unrepresented by any political party, but I hope that my party will now change that by embracing the 48%.

Catherine West: Each of us has a responsibility as a parliamentarian—it is the basic reason why we are here—to represent those who have put us here. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ask questions and gain information in order to make correct judgments on how we vote. That is why we want to see the impact assessments for the various sectors. Speaking for my constituency, the three sectors that I am most concerned about are construction, production and the creative industries, and medical services and social care. I simply want to be able to explain to my constituents the way that I will be voting over the coming months.

Chris Ruane: Would my hon. Friend add the British aerospace industry to that list? In north Wales, 7,000 jobs in one factory in Broughton depend on it. With 100,000 jobs in total, would aerospace be up there on her list of sectors that we need information on?

Catherine West: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Knowing the facts and figures behind the Government’s thinking in various sectors is even more important in the regions, where there can be an over-dependence on one industry.
Parliament should be hugged, not pushed away. The Government should be hugging us, because they need us. In some ways, the Government’s Front-Bench team needs us more than we need them. I would welcome another election; let us have one tomorrow. We have to work together on this, but we can work together only if Members do not feel frustrated and left in the dark.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the impact on industries in our local areas. Does she agree that the medical services and social care sector is incredibly important in all our constituencies? A leaked Department of Health report from earlier this year suggested that there could be a shortfall of 40,000 nurses if there is a hard Brexit—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) answers that intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker has just made it clear, and I reiterate it, that if people make long interventions at this point in the debate, they are depriving someone else who has been sitting here all afternoon of the opportunity to speak at all.

Catherine West: I agree with my hon. Friend and thank her for all her excellent forensic questioning in this area. It is sad, however, that she has had to spend hours and hours asking those questions when it is really our basic right as parliamentarians to have the information we need for this important treaty making. It is probably the most important constitutional question that we in this Parliament will have to grapple with. My worry is that we could be heading for a crash course, which relates to my intervention on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about there being an element of people not wanting to know the facts and figures. Those who have already made up their mind want to be positive, but perhaps they also want to ignore the facts. That is the opposite extreme, and opposites are unnecessary and probably bad in this regard.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Just carry on.

Catherine West: Go on.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady tell the House what she has done in the past 16 months to strengthen the British hand and to be positive about things?

Catherine West: I have redoubled the number of meetings that I am having, and I am polishing up my Mandarin Chinese so that I can improve our standing with one of our big trading partners. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is important that this does not end up like a Pentecostalist meeting where we close our ears and eyes and just sing for the positivity of Brexit. We should engage our minds as well our emotions when dealing with the taxing and difficult question of what the future will hold for our children and their children.
I want to make a quick point about the cliff-edge scenario. I am unsure whether we have really explored it. None of us wants it. The Prime Minister said in her Florence speech that she wants a transition deal just as much as those of us who are sensible and also want it. Let us imagine, in the worst of all possible worlds, that we are on a crash course leading towards the cliff edge. I am deeply concerned about inflation, flat wages, the more than £200 billion of household debt and the fact that interest rates are going up this week. These are deeply concerning and worrying times for our economy, with or without Brexit. I am worried about the combination of factors, which is why we need a proper analysis from the Treasury of the broad overall picture of non-Brexit-related issues.
There are other people whose opinions we must trust. For example, the former chief mandarin of the Foreign Office, Sir Simon Fraser, has said that the differences between us in our debates on Brexit mean that the UK has been “absent” from the formal negotiations, perhaps leading to this terrible cliff-edge scenario.
Crashing out could lead to real questions about the safety of our nuclear facilities, and other Members have mentioned the European Aviation Safety Agency. Air tickets can be purchased up to a year in advance, which brings us close to three or four months before March 2019. What will we do about the lack of alignment and regulation on other transport questions and on agriculture, financial services and banking?
I finish on the human question of the European citizens in our communities. Not a surgery goes by without a European citizen coming to explain that, despite living in the UK for 37 years, contributing to the economy and bringing up a family, they feel deeply alienated and angry. The rhetoric around xenophobic feelings and around whether they feel accepted or not seems to have been heightened. Some families even want to return to European countries after living in the UK for 37 years, which is a terrible shame, all because of the lack of certainty and the lack of a scientific approach to Brexit. The Home Office lacks a firm approach, and it is constantly moving the goalposts. Crashing out of the EU would be worst for EU nationals, who would be left completely in limbo. The impact in certain regions would be horrendous, and the health sector would probably be worst affected, as our NHS is so dependent.
Will the Government please stop their confusion, division and chaos? Please do not drag us back again and again on this point. Be firm and give us the information that our constituents expect.

Huw Merriman: From the mood music in the Chamber, and from what I am hearing from the two Front Benches, it appears that the Opposition feel confident that their motion, if it is not successfully opposed, will to some extent cause the Government to release the papers. I therefore work on the basis that that may well be the case.
What will the papers look like, and what would be a responsible position for both sides of the House to take with respect to that information, and particularly with respect to redacting certain information that may be deemed commercially sensitive to the organisations that  have provided it? I ask that question in the true spirit of transparency, because, if information that has been passed to the Government on the basis that it would not be released thereafter is subsequently released—there may be confidentiality agreements in place, albeit they would not survive a vote of this House— the danger is that those companies would not be as willing to provide so much information to the Government, and therefore to the House, in future. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be able to work on that basis with the Government Front Bench to ensure that, in making this a success, we do not end up lacking information from our business partners.
I sit on the Select Committee on Transport and, despite having sat for only a few weeks, the Chair, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), has already twice had to warn Committee members not to leak documentation. That is a difficulty, and I hope that if, indeed, the reports do go to the Brexit Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).will take all the steps he can to ensure that, if certain redacted information is given to Committee members, we try to preserve the spirit in which those organisations delivered that information.
Looking beyond this challenge, and working on the basis that this information is to be given, I absolutely favour transparency and more information in the process; I am incredibly interested in what organisations have to say. I am well aware that often the advice of civil servants would be cautious, but I hope that Government Members will look beyond that and recognise that if we do not publish information—and we are therefore where we are today—Members such as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) to try to make out that there is a conspiracy or a smoking gun in the documentation. There may well be nothing of the sort, beyond cautious civil service advice. I hope that my side can take that into account.
I stand here as someone who voted remain in the referendum, although I did not campaign for the remain team. I spoke to my constituents, held a series of meetings and wrote to 40,000 households to give them information about both sides of the argument, and then I very much left it to them to decide. I do not believe they were duped when it came to the decision. I find it patronising beyond belief when SNP Members say that all my constituents, 60% of whom voted the other way from me, did so on some false basis and are not capable of making their own decisions. It is incredibly patronising to my constituents and many others to be told that. I left it to my constituents to make their decision and they did so, and it is my job, as a democrat, to ensure that that decision goes through.

Anna Soubry: Does my hon. Friend not accept that it is becoming clear that a number of promises made to people who voted leave will not be kept and that, in fact, the opposite is happening? Those people will not get £350 million a week for the NHS; they will not see the scrapping of all the regulations and so on, because they will be embodied in British law; they will not see a particular reduction in immigration; and, arguably, they will not be better off. It is not that they were stupid by any means—they were simply conned.

Huw Merriman: The danger with that argument is it presupposes that everybody in this Chamber knows exactly the reasons why people voted the way they did. The reality, from the question on the ballot paper, is that more people voted to leave than voted to remain. That is all we know. We do not know the reasons why and it would be wrong for us to try to interpret them. I have been elected by those same constituents, so of course I would say they are right, but SNP Members may wish to think about the same principle: for whatever reason, they came to that decision and they were right.
What I want to do is make a success of it. This is the big concern about this debate, which is a great technical debate that I have found interesting, as a lawyer. The question is whether it moves us forward to making a success of leaving the EU? We must remember that 498 out of 650 Members of this House voted to trigger article 50. Surely it follows that it is in their interests to make a success of a decision that, ultimately, they made. Yet time and again the House is used as a mechanism to slow the process down and try to defeat the ultimate goal of those who voted in that manner. I find that a terrible shame.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Huw Merriman: I will not take any more interventions; the hon. Gentleman will have his own time.
As I was saying, I find that a shame. On Monday, our Transport Committee heard from four leaders—those of British Airways, EasyJet, Manchester airport and Heathrow airport. We challenged them on whether this would be a success for industry and they could not have been more confident that it would be. They were confident in their industry, but with the proviso that, between industry and politicians, we would make a success of it. My concern is that politicians seem to be the ones who do not have it in them to make a success of it. Again, I challenge all hon. Members who voted to trigger article 50 to talk it up and make a success of this process.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the exchanges in the debate. The motion on the Order Paper is clear and unqualified: it says that the impact assessments should
“be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.”
During the debate, though, those who proposed the motion and others who support it have suggested that parts of those documents might be withheld. Have you received an amendment to the motion that might qualify what should be provided to the Select Committee, or is it for the Government to interpret what they should do after the debate?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can answer the practical part of it very simply by saying that the Chair has received no such amendment. As far as I am concerned—and I can be very positive about this—the matter that is currently being debated is exactly the wording in the motion before us on the Order Paper. The way in which the Opposition interpret that might be different from the way in which the Government interpret it. That is what this Chamber is here for: to discuss those differences and come to a conclusion.

Anna Soubry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to disclose to members of the media what they plan to do in relation to the documents we are discussing? I have just seen a tweet from the rather excellent political correspondent from The Sun newspaper, who says that he understands that the Government will release the documents, albeit heavily redacted.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Lady for her very reasonable point of order. It is not for the Chair to rule on what the Government may say to journalists, but I say to the right hon. Lady that while a debate is going on in the Chamber about a matter of great importance, the place where announcements in connection with or pertaining to that matter of importance should be made is here in the Chamber.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You said that the debate is about not only the motion but how the Government interpret it. Should papers be provided to the Exiting the European Union Committee, surely other Select Committees—such as the International Trade Committee, which I chair, and perhaps the Health Committee and several others—should be in play. Then again, if the Government do a full U-turn and release the information, we should welcome that.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. From his point of view as the Chairman of another Select Committee, he has made his point well. As I said earlier, that is not a matter on which I can make a ruling from the Chair at this moment.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There seems to be in the Government’s mind some belief that they should do all the redaction. If the House decides that the impact assessments should be provided to a Select Committee, I believe it would be better if the Select Committee could then decide what it was going to publish. The serious, important point is that were any member of that Committee to breach the Committee’s decisions and publish the impact assessments willy-nilly, off their own bat, I am sure you would agree that that would be a matter of privilege. It would be a contempt of Parliament.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his most interesting point of order, but it is hypothetical. I would hope that any member of a Committee would act in a way that would not be a breach of privilege and would not breach the rules of Parliament. The whole of issue of privilege, its importance and the importance of behaving in a way that is commensurate with the role of being an hon. Member of this House is there not for the sake of tradition or any frothy reason, but to preserve our freedom through democracy. That is why these matters are of great importance.
We will now return to the debate because, as the Chamber well knows, these are not points of order for the Chair, but are matters for debate. There is clearly disagreement, which is why we have debates on these matters. We will recommence with Mr Phil Wilson.

Phil Wilson: Let me start by following on from what the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said about the customs union. I have received information from the North East England Chamber of Commerce about the state of companies in the north-east and about how they will deal with leaving the customs union. It believes that the majority of its companies do not have the necessary skills to deal with the new customs arrangements that we will have when we leave. It says that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows no inclination of providing any support to businesses to ensure company compliance. In fact, the new intake of 1,000 HMRC staff will be there just to raise revenue, not to help ensure that companies get the documentation right. It also says that if we have a no-deal scenario where everything sent from and to the EU has to have a customs declaration for clearance purposes, the cost to business will be huge. A customs declaration currently costs between £20 and £40—in some cases it is £75. Sometimes companies are charged by the line.
There are 16,600 commodity codes and more than 300 custom procedure codes. Even taking the view that businesses will get to know the commodity codes and the custom procedure codes that they use regularly, it will not be an easy task to get used to the change. They will need training, which will not be available, and they think that they will need a major upgrade of software and IT equipment to deal with the changes.
Given that background, it is not surprising that many of our companies and businesses want to know what the impact will be of leaving the single market and the customs union in March 2019. More than 60% of the trade in the north-east of England is with the EU. My constituency has the biggest business park in the region, with more than 500 companies based there employing between 10,000 and 12,000 people. A few weeks ago, I was at a Brexit seminar on the industrial estate, and the one thing that I kept hearing about was the uncertainty. People kept saying, “What happens next?” Some said, “What are the questions that we need to ask?” I said that the one thing they needed was access to the impact assessments. We need to be able to work out how the sectors of our industry will be affected.
It might be easy for multinationals such as Hitachi, Nissan and Airbus to put the capacity into the problem so that they can see how they will be affected by the various scenarios in the future. The vast majority of companies on the industrial estate—the business park in Newton Aycliffe—are small and medium-sized enterprises and they do not have such capacity. For them, it is all about tactics. It is not so much about strategy, but about getting through the next year, and they need help. They need to know how they will be affected in the future.
Let us look at some of the sectors that are represented in that business park in Newton Aycliffe. Some 814,000 people who work in the automotive sector generally are feeling insecure at the moment and need to know what is going to happen. The construction and engineering sector employs 2.9 million people; the electricity, marketing and renewables sector 112,000 people; the electronics sector 850,000 people; the IT, software and computers sector 1.4 million; the medical devices sector 50,000; and the professional services sector 1.1 million. The list goes on. All those sectors are represented on the Newton Aycliffe business park.
We do not want to reveal everything—that might not be in the national interest—but companies and the Brexit Committee need to be able to analyse what is happening. What are we frightened of? What do the Government not want us to see? I fear that much of the redacted information will be a bit negative. Some of it might not be in the national interest, and therefore should not be revealed, but some of it might prove that the line the Government are following is not in the national interest.
In supporting this motion, I am saying that we need openness. We need to take back control in this Chamber. Those who wanted to leave said that throughout the referendum; now we need to put it into practice.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who has just sat down, is another supporter of this motion who is now talking about the release of a set of justifiably redacted documents, as opposed to the complete documents. This underlines the fact that the House is debating documents, but we do not really know what is in them because we do not have them.
Some colleagues think that these documents will contain some dreadful smoking gun that will blow the Government’s case out of the water. I can honestly say that I believe that the Government are far more concerned about releasing information into the public domain that will actually help the European Union in the negotiations, when the European Union clearly has no intention of releasing its impact assessments. Indeed, one of the reasons we are leaving the European Union is that this House has absolutely no power over which documents the European Union should be compelled to release because it is completely beyond the power of this House.

Michael Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that the shadow Secretary of State said, very fairly, that he would anticipate that there may well be some redactions or even a summary?

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We are beginning to see, in this rather messy and untidy debate, why this 19th century procedure is not used very often. The usual procedure would be that the Select Committee would request the documents, but it has not requested these documents. No writ or summons have been issued for any of these documents. We simply have this motion.
There is a sensitivity within Government about releasing documents that are used to make political points. Part of the Treasury’s reputation was severely trashed when, in the run-up to the referendum, it released documents that were patently misleading and were used for propaganda purposes in a way that I think rather embarrassed Treasury officials.
Then there is the question of the status of the motion. The words “binding” or “not binding” do not appear in “Erskine May”. There is a misappreciation of the meaning of these motions. By passing a motion, the House is not making law. There are no obligations that are enforceable through the courts as there would be if we were passing a set of regulations or an Act of Parliament. It is simply an expression of the will of the House.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: “Erskine May” does indeed not say “binding”, but it does say:
“Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion for a return.”
Power is something pretty forceful, and is much more than just an expression of will.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend takes me to the very next point, which is that it would be unconscionable for any Government to ignore a motion. But I heard the Minister very clearly saying that he does not intend to ignore the motion. In fact, he made it clear that the Government will respond to the motion. This echoes what the Leader of the House said recently in business questions about Opposition day motions. She said that there should be a standard, and that the Government will respond to a motion in the House within, at most, 12 weeks of the will of the House being expressed in such a way.
The very fact that we are having a debate about exactly what would be released means that it is a matter for the Government and Ministers to interpret. If the House is then still not satisfied with what has been released, the House can come back to it. Let us not get in a paddy that there is some great constitutional principle. Parliament is sovereign not because it passes motions, but because, in the Diceyan sense, Parliament can make or unmake any law; and I reiterate that in this matter, we are not making law—at least, not law that is statute law and enforceable through the courts.
It is worth repeating to the House what the Minister reminded us during his opening remarks, which is that the House has previously voted, by a large majority, to protect sensitive information that is relevant to the negotiations. That is why I invite the official Opposition to think very carefully before repeating this exercise. These documents may not be very serious and there may not be very much in them, but this is a power to call for papers that should be used sparingly, precisely because these are the negotiations of a generation.
Unless the Government have the freedom to conduct the negotiations with the necessary confidentiality, the Opposition will undermine the ability of the Government to produce the better terms of settlement that the Opposition say they want. This is potentially extremely disruptive and irresponsible, and the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) knows it. This is more about party politics and exploiting the situation for party advantage than it is about supporting the national interest. There may be a great sea of Opposition colleagues jeering at that point, but they are jeering at the national interest when they jeer in that fashion.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend has hit on the most salient point. My family business is on the industrial estate in Newton Aycliffe, mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). That business, like all the others I have met on that industrial estate, care about one thing: getting the best deal for the United Kingdom. They do not want the Government or this House to do anything that will compromise that. Releasing these papers will do just that.

Bernard Jenkin: The businesses I speak to in my constituency and around the country are increasingly impatient with the games being played here at Westminster and the games being played by the European Union. They want  us to leave the European Union and they want us to get on with this to end the uncertainty as quickly as possible. They do not want a protracted and uncertain future for this country, made worse by the irresponsible tactics of the Opposition.

Angus MacNeil: The last Brexit promise left standing was the promise to take back control. What we are seeing today is the Brexiteers running away from control.

Bernard Jenkin: It always struck me as odd that those in the Scottish National party believe in self-determination for Scotland, but want to sell out to a superstate European Union. I have never understood how they reconcile the desire for independence with wanting to be shackled to a superstate in which they would have but a pimple of influence compared to the influence they have in the United Kingdom.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should we not use the correct terminology in this Parliament? Should we not understand what the European Union is? It is a union of 28 sovereign Governments. It is very far away from being a superstate.

Eleanor Laing: That is not a point of order. There have been too many points of order and too many long interventions. I am now reducing the time limit for speeches to three minutes, because that is all the time we have left.

David Lammy: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I have always believed in the ability of our country to pool sovereignty with the European Union. I have listened to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) over many, many years trying to persuade me about the sovereignty of this Parliament. It is great to participate in a debate that is demonstrating the sovereignty of this Parliament.
I first started asking questions on this issue on 4 September, using that sovereignty and my role as an MP to raise these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) made a freedom of information request, again using her ability as an elected Member to get to the truth. We now see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) assert the sovereignty of this House by dragging the Government to the House to raise these issues. We have heard from Select Committee Chairs, an important institution in this House, that they could well consider this information. They understand that some of it may be redacted, but it all goes to the issue of a sovereign Parliament: we cannot argue for taking back control and then seek to thwart the will of this Parliament, its Select Committees and hon. Members, to get to the heart of the truth.
I want to see the impact assessments, because there are things in them that I expect to read. I expect to read that the health service is going to do a lot with the £350 million. I look forward to seeing it. I expect to read, as we heard during the referendum campaign, that we do not need to worry about a skills gap because there are lots of people in our country who are going to step into those roles. I look forward to seeing what the  Department for Work and Pensions makes of the assessment on skills, along with its colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I look forward to hearing what assessment has been made by the Home Office of whether, when we have limited free movement and we ask the Indians for a trade deal, they will ask whether they can have visas. For all those reasons, it is important to understand whether the arguments that have been put forward by many Conservative Members are actually made in those impact assessments.
However, the real reason this is important is the seriousness of this debate. As night follows day, it will mostly not be us in this Chamber who suffer or struggle as a consequence of any shift in our economy. It is people’s jobs and livelihoods and how they feed their children that matters, and for that reason, we must see those impact assessments. It is a crying shame that this process began because of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, and not because the Government felt able to be open.

Vicky Ford: First, I am very glad that these impact assessments and cross-sectoral assessments exist. I said over a year ago that we should be looking at the detail. As a British Conservative in the European Parliament, I worked hand in hand with British Conservative Ministers to champion better regulation. I said that, before we made decisions, we should consult stakeholders, look at the different impacts and assess the options. I thank the Government for going through that exercise. I am delighted that Ministers have been meeting stakeholders and talking to businesses, Government organisations and consumer groups.
However, I understand why the Opposition want to know more about what is going on. There is deep concern about this issue in the country. Brexit does carry risks—as a remainer, I warned about that. The risks have not gone away, and the country needs to be reassured that we are acting in its best interests. Transparency is really important.
However, the decisions are not black and white. Ministers will have been given price-sensitive, confidential information. I know that because stakeholders have told me that they have given such information. If that information is put in the public domain, the very jobs that Opposition Members say they want to protect would actually be jeopardised.
This information could also jeopardise our ongoing negotiations. It is not normal in a trade negotiation to show all our cards; indeed, it is normal to keep our cards close to our chest. That is what the European Parliament does. During the EU-US trade agreements, information on sector-specific issues was not shared with Committee meetings. The negotiators did not even come and give information in a public forum. Their feedback between the different rounds of negotiations was given behind closed doors. When information was shared with the relevant Committees, that was done in a highly confidential way. People would need to go to a room, leave their phone behind, read the papers in confidence and not disclose price-sensitive information. So let us not say that this information should be shared, without thinking through the impact of doing so.

Stephen Kinnock: I rise to urge Members on both sides of the House to support the motion. I do so for the simple reason that, without publication, it is impossible for this House to do its job, which is to hold the Government to account. We must have a full, frank and informed debate about what Brexit means, and particularly about what a no-deal Brexit would mean for our society, for our economy and for jobs, trade and living standards. The fact is that this House and the British people cannot have that debate without access to the key information.
We face a productivity crisis, a weakened pound, creeping inflation, higher input costs and the slowest GDP growth in Europe—all challenges that would be deeply and dramatically compounded by a no-deal Brexit. No deal would mean customs chaos. Adding just an extra two minutes to customs proceedings at Dover would mean a 17-mile queue from Dover almost back to Ashford. No deal would mean airlines were not sure whether their planes would be able to take off post-Brexit. No deal would mean thousands of citizens and businesses left in limbo—maybe temporarily, maybe not—when it was realised that many of their products were no longer eligible for sale across the EU. So let us hope that the Government will now drop their dangerous and vacuous no-deal bluff. The Government contend that to maximise leverage in the negotiations we must make it clear that we are prepared and willing to accept a no-deal scenario. Taking this logic at face value, surely, then, the more bullish we look and the better prepared we appear to be to manage the new tariffs and customs duties at Dover or at the airport, the greater our leverage would be.
If the impact assessments were positive, they would not only have been published—their findings would be screamed from the rooftops. That is why the failure to publish makes it crystal clear that the no-deal rhetoric is a bluff—a bluff that weakens us and undermines our credibility in the negotiations. It is yet another example of the Brexiteer tail wagging the Tory dog; yet another example of the national interest playing second fiddle to the internal factional interests of the Conservative party; yet another example of putting party before country, where the Prime Minister has put the placation of her own Back Benchers ahead of the interests of our country. I ask right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to put country first and to support this motion tonight.

Suella Fernandes: I find the basis for this debate utterly baffling, especially in the light of the fact that on 7 December last year Labour Members voted not to demand any information from the Government that could affect our negotiating position. This debate is therefore in direct contravention to something that Labour Members previously supported. That reflects either a bumbling confusion or a deliberate fudging of their approach to the negotiations. They have adopted a strategy that involves accepting any and whatever deal is presented to the UK by the EU. If Britain was required to pay £1 trillion, they would still accept a deal. If Britain was to accept free movement after our departure, they would still accept a deal. If Britain was required to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction  and forced to remain members of the single market and the customs union, they would still accept a deal. Indeed, if Britain was not to be leaving the EU, Labour Members would still accept a deal. They are not behind Brexit and they are not behind what the British people instructed this place to deliver in that historic referendum last year.
This is a complex negotiation, and it is important that we get it right. It is normal that in even the most basic trade negotiations there needs to be a degree of secrecy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) highlighted, based on her experience in the European Parliament. The European Commission made that very clear when it said recently:
“A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU.”
If that is the case for the EU, why cannot it be the case for Britain?
We need to retain room for manoeuvre, including the ability to give and take—to trade off different interests and maximise the value of concessions—and to do so without always having the other side know what we know.

Lilian Greenwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Suella Fernandes: No, because I do not have time.
We need to retain our ability to negotiate with that degree of agility and speed. This trade negotiation is different from any other. We have a changing political context. It involves different parties—other countries that are members of the European Union. It involves elections and changing political contexts. We have already had elections in France, Germany and Austria, and we will have many more between now and 2019.
Parliamentary scrutiny is right, and it has been provided through questions, papers and debates. I urge Labour Members to get behind Britain, get behind Brexit and get behind the Government.

Chris Matheson: The refusal of the Government to publish these impact assessments is sadly part of a pattern of shutting out scrutiny and opposition throughout. The basic issue is that the Government are being driven by hard-line ideological Brexiteers whose priority is to leave with as hard a Brexit as possible. They want a blank canvas on which to repaint the UK in their own desolate vision, shorn of rights for ordinary people and protections for the environment and consumers, and creating as free a market as possible.
The Prime Minister warned the EU27 of the danger of the UK setting itself up as an offshore tax haven if we did not get a fair deal, but the truth is that that is exactly what the hard-line Brexiteers want and she is too weak to stand up to them. Indeed, I suspect that the failure to progress in the negotiations is due, in part, to an inability to reconcile the pressures within the Conservative party with the needs of the country; of course, the Conservative party comes first. I suspect  that that will lead us to a situation in which we crash out without a deal, engineered to enable the Brexiteers to blame the EU27 for their intransigence.
The sinister and dangerous atmosphere that the Brexiteers seek to create is adding to the real nastiness in the country caused by the referendum. Remain MPs such as me have been described as “saboteurs”. The Governor of the Bank of England has been described as an “enemy of Brexit”. We still continually hear the phrase “the will of the people” used to describe the narrow victory for leave in the referendum, as though the 48% never existed. Last week, we saw an attack on academic integrity and freedom. It is like a Brexit inquisition designed to intimidate and silence scrutiny, in the same way as the Government are silencing scrutiny over these reports because they know how badly things are likely to go.
As other hon. Members have said, if the Government are so confident, why do they not publish the impact assessments? Let us see how strong the Government’s hand is. What have they got to hide? What is certain is that the Brexiteers want to rush through any deal before the absurdity of their position is exposed, hence the anti-intellectualism of this Brexit inquisition.
An even greater reason to shut down scrutiny and rush things through is the increasing evidence of manipulation of the referendum by foreign powers. The unholy alliance of Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Russia is perhaps the most sinister aspect of the whole sorry affair, and I ask the Brexiteers why they want to align themselves with Putin’s Government in seeking the break-up of the EU. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) in his call for an inquiry—which would, of course, have to be blocked by the Brexiteers in the Conservative party.
Disinfecting light must be shed on the Brexit process, and the first step to doing that would be the publication of the reports. When things go south after Brexit—and they will—the British people, who will suffer, will never forgive this Government for not revealing the truth while there was still time.

Kevin Foster: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Some of my colleagues will know I that always find the discovery of new and arcane parliamentary procedure in the Chamber interesting, so it has been particularly good to be here this afternoon.
I draw Members’ attention to the motion that we are debating, because some Members seem to be under a false impression about it. Anyone listening to this debate would think that the motion says that everything should be released publicly and immediately, but that is not what it says. It says that the information should be
“provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.”
The Members who shouted in their speeches that the information would go out to the public have clearly not read their own motion.
I was interested to hear the slightly more conciliatory tone of the shadow Secretary of State and the Chair of the Select Committee, who both accepted that there would be an element of redaction and that certain information would legitimately have to be withheld in the national interest.

Lilian Greenwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Foster: No, I will not. There is little time, and I have sat through the whole debate listening to people who have had their opportunity to speak.
Although I think it right that the Government are not opposing the motion, we need to be much clearer about what it is about. The tone of some of the speeches has been a lot more sensible than that of others. Some Members have taken the opportunity to rerun the referendum, which is all very interesting, and I am sure it has been fascinating to listen to, but at the core of the matter is the fact that people made their decision in June last year, and we now need to make the process successful.
I have heard the talk about the issues surrounding no deal, but I have yet to hear a representative of a European country say that the EU must stay with Britain in the negotiations until we finally give in to what they demand. The EU has left the possibility of no deal on the table, so it is not unreasonable for the UK Government, as the other party in the negotiations, to do exactly the same.
I was reassured to hear the Minister’s earlier comments, and I am sure that the Government genuinely want to engage with the House and engage with information that helps and advances our debate. Some of what we have heard this afternoon has simply been playing to the gallery. Some Members are trying to pretend that information is not being made available, when it will be. Others are demanding that everything should be published immediately, even though their colleagues admitted that some of it will need to be redacted in the national interest or that a summary could be presented. I am sure that the Government will take that idea away and consider seriously whether a summary could cover the points that have been made.
For me, this has been a useful debate. I think such a motion should be brought forward, but Members should be up front and clear that arguing about this process is not actually getting us closer to a final deal. We must not do things in this House that go against the national interest, because people will not forgive us for that. If we chuck stuff out into the papers, that may have a real impact. It is right that the Government have had a chance to explore the options. Although this has been an interesting exploration of procedure, we need to be clear about what the motion is actually about.

Seema Malhotra: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) for securing this important debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have called for the publication of the sectoral impact assessments.
Our economy is on the brink of the biggest change for generations. Sharing these reports is an important part of how Parliament and the Government will plan together for the big change ahead to achieve the best deal for British businesses and families. It is unclear to me why the Government are determined to keep 29 million British workers and their parliamentary representatives in the dark about the impact Brexit may have on their jobs, careers and livelihoods.
This is not just an Opposition issue; Chairs of Select Chairs have supported publication, and over 180 MPs from across the parties have backed a letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and me to the Secretary of State. This matters because the situation we face is potentially very serious. One sign is that the Bank of England believes up to 75,000 jobs could be lost in the financial services industry as a result of Brexit. Another is that in the year since the referendum, we have fallen from the top to the bottom of the G7 growth league table.
To have a proper debate about the impact of Brexit on our economy, jobs and living standards, we need to know to the fullest possible extent the effects it will have on every sector. This is not about leave or remain, but about putting country before party. It is not about taking sides, but about a nation planning together. It is about leadership, transparency, clarity and responsibility.

Lilian Greenwood: I will be very brief. Does my hon. Friend agree that the opposition given by Government Members is wholly confused? Of the last two speakers, one said that the reports cannot be released because that would lay open our hand in the negotiations and the other admitted that it would not because they would be provided in confidence to the Select Committee.

Seema Malhotra: I will come on in a moment to talk about the confusion that I believe is holding back common sense in this debate.
We are getting the sense that there has been a change of heart by the Government. I welcome that because supporting the motion is the right thing to do. I hope that before the reports are provided to Parliament the Ministers will read them first. I hope that we will also receive confirmation today of the time by which this will happen. The list of studies was published this week, four months after they were first promised, but with 17 months to do until Brexit day, time is of the essence.
In two years, the Secretary of State has gone from saying of FOI requests that
“information is withheld from the public for no good reason other than to spare the blushes of the powerful”
to saying now that the Government need a “safe space” for policy development to be conducted in private. In a year, he gone from saying:
“We have more to gain than we have to lose, while the opposite is true for the EU”
to telling the Lords EU Committee yesterday that Britain’s Brexit withdrawal agreement will “probably favour” the EU. The confusion at the heart of Government must not now get in the way of a nation planning together for the huge challenges to our economy that clearly lie ahead.
The Government interpreted Opposition day motions on 12 October and 7 December 2016 as binding. In the interests of the country, they should do so in relation to the motion that I am sure and confident the House will pass today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Let me make it absolutely clear that when someone who has the Floor takes an intervention and allows someone who has not been sitting here waiting to speak to make  their point, then at the end of such a busy debate, many people will not have the opportunity to speak. That is what is about to happen, and every Member of the House ought to take responsibility for not taking interventions and for keeping their remarks short. Hon. Members are preventing other hon. Members from speaking.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on his motion. The Opposition are absolutely right to table motions on Opposition days that force the Government to do things. It has been a general waste of this House’s time to have motions on motherhood and apple pie, which has been the tendency in recent years. To ensure that we have a serious, substantial matter on which to vote is a very encouraging trend and one that I hope will continue.
I have no doubt that the motion is, in all senses, binding. It is not parliamentary wallpaper. It is exercising one of our most ancient rights, to demand papers. It is interesting that in the instructions given to Select Committees they are given the right to send for people and papers, but that is the right of this House delegated to those Select Committees. It is not something inherent in Select Committees, and it is therefore something clearly that this House can, at any time, call back to itself, as, quite rightly, the Opposition have proposed today.
As to the papers themselves, I have no particular view—this is, in normal circumstances, a matter for the Government—and I would have gone along with the Government had they wished to oppose the motion. But in the event that they do not, they must publish these papers to the Brexit Select Committee in full. The motion does not allow for redaction, and a happy chat across the Dispatch Box between the shadow spokesmen and the Ministers does not reduce the right of this House to see the papers.
However, it may well be that the Select Committee, of which I happen to be a member, may decide not to publish large sections of those papers, for confidentiality reasons, but on the basis of the motion, unless a further motion is passed to amend it at some stage, that right must be with this House, not with Her Majesty’s Government.
My one criticism of the motion is that I think it a marginal discourtesy to the Select Committee not to have asked it in the first place whether it wanted this motion to be tabled, but in the grander scheme of things that is a minor complaint.
The Canadian example is important, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) criticised me for referring to the Canadian Parliament, but it is in a way a sister Parliament of this one.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to give my hon. Friend an extra minute and say, “Hear, hear!” to everything he says.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful, because I have always campaigned—this is one reason I was so keen to leave the EU—for the rights of this House. One of the great rights of this House is to hold the Government to  account and to use the procedures and facilities open to it to do that in a powerful and real way. That is something the motion does.
The Canadian example—over Afghanistan—shows that failure to meet the requirements of this House is a breach of privilege, and there is no protection for any information that the Government have received from outside sources on the grounds of confidentiality once it is required by this House. Any agreement the Government have made is superseded by the powers of this House and cannot be challenged in any court because it is a fundamental privilege of this House that it should be guided by its own rules.
I have no particular view on whether it is right or wrong to publish these papers—I would trust the Government on that—but I am pleased that the House of Commons is exercising its historic power, albeit from a 19th century precedent, and I welcome the Government’s response.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Very few Members will now have an opportunity to speak and I am reducing the time limit to two minutes.

Tom Brake: I have spoken many times in the House over the past 20 years on freedom of information. I want to focus on that today. I was nearly thrown out of the Chamber by Michael Martin for my pains some years ago in pressing for extension to freedom of information.
The Government side have focused very much on why publication of these documents would damage the interests of the UK and affect the Government’s policy making process, but the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the Government also to consider the public interest. That is why, having submitted freedom of information requests to the Government to ask them to release a sample of these reports, I am now appealing against their refusal to issue them.
These are the grounds on which I am appealing: the release of these reports would meet all the key public interest tests, demonstrating transparent and accountable Government decision-making processes; promote public understanding of the implications of Brexit; safeguard democratic processes, which would be severely damaged if the Government pursued a path that they knew was very damaging to the UK’s interests; and secure the best use of public resources.
There is clearly great public and parliamentary interest in examining these documents, as Brexit will have a greater impact on people economically and socially, and on the UK diplomatically, than any other decision taken in the past 50 years. The Government have failed to take that into account, and I shall submit a freedom of information request to ask them to set out how they took into account the public interest test versus concerns around damaging the UK’s interests.
I am afraid that we are left with the impression that the main reason for refusing to release these reports is that they confirm that the UK will be worse off after Brexit, and that the Government are trying to hide this inconvenient truth.

Chris Philp: The motion requires—some would say, compels—the Government to release the reports in their entirety, unredacted. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just made that point. Yet a consensus appears to have emerged in this House this afternoon that it would be detrimental to our national interest to release these reports in their entirety. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) acknowledged that in his opening remarks.

Keir Starmer: What I said in my opening was in criticism of the blanket ban. I said that the Government should consider first whether any of the material needs to be withheld and, if so, whether bits of it could be released—summaries or gists. I was criticising the Government’s approach because they had not already gone through that exercise, which they should have gone through; I was not actually talking about what the motion means.

Chris Philp: Many Members today have made it clear that they believe publication of either a summary or a redacted version would strike the best balance between keeping the House informed and protecting our national interest. I was going to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if the Minister from the Dispatch Box made a commitment to publish a summary or a redacted version of these reports, the Opposition Front-Bench team would decide not to press the motion to a vote, because if passed as written, there is a danger that it would compel the Government to publish all the reports that Members on both sides of the House appear to agree would be damaging. It would be damaging for two reasons. First, contributors to those reports—companies—would have their commercial information revealed, even though the Government had given them an undertaking of confidentiality. Secondly, publication would reveal our position to our negotiating counterparts.
There is, I am afraid, a history of confidential material leaking out of Select Committees. Although the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said that he would seek to prevent any confidential material leaking out, that has happened on a number of occasions in the recent past. In 2012, a Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on phone hacking was leaked. In 2016, a Select Committee report on arms export controls was leaked to “Newsnight.” In 1999, a social security report was leaked to Gordon Brown’s then Parliamentary Private Secretary. Robin Cook received a leak in 1999 in relation to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and in 2013 a Public Accounts Committee report on Wonga was leaked to Wonga. So there are legitimate concerns about whether material given to a Select Committee will necessarily remain confidential.
There has been a measure of consensus in the House this afternoon that a redacted or summary version of these reports would strike the correct balance. It may be that the Minister gives an undertaking from the Dispatch Box along those lines, and it would be in the national interest if, in the event that Members in the Opposition Front-Bench team found those assurances satisfactory, they did not press their motion.

Catherine McKinnell: The Government’s position on this issue is hugely symbolic. Ministers’ unwillingness to furnish a Committee of this House with basic information is a symbol of a Government in trouble, seeking to avoid proper scrutiny and challenge by elected Members of this Parliament. The Government’s position on the motion is also symbolic of what is entirely wrong with this Government’s approach to Brexit, and how we find our country moving through this historic approach since the referendum.
Last year, as the Prime Minister came to power, she found herself leading a nation that was clearly divided on the subject. The Government should have been straining, and should be straining, every sinew to bring this country back together, but instead we have an unelected Prime Minister, determined to press ahead with a who-knows-what Brexit regardless of the consequences for different parts of the country and sectors of the economy. The Government are willing to do this with as little scrutiny as possible, with Ministers taking a “Whitehall knows best” approach to a process that will profoundly impact this country for decades to come. Instead of bringing the country back together, this total lack of transparency and engagement with people’s very real concerns is serving only to create further distrust and division.
Why is that important to the north-east? Well, we know that the Government have undertaken the modelling of the impacts. It has been reported that the Department for Exiting the European Union has carried out analysis that concludes that the north-east of England and Scotland will be the region and country worst affected. It stands to reason, because 60% of our exports go to the EU and we rely on millions of pounds in agricultural, structural, social and university funding.
We were told loudly and clearly last year that leaving the EU was about taking back control and that voting to leave would ensure the primacy of this sovereign Parliament. Instead, we now have a minority Government determined to obfuscate at every stage, overriding parliamentary democracy at every opportunity. This must end today.

Sarah Wollaston: The Health Committee will shortly begin an inquiry entitled “Brexit—medicines, medical devices and substances of human origin”. We will be considering, among other issues, how we can guarantee safe, effective and timely access to medicines and substances of human origin; the future of medical research and development; how we will co-operate and collaborate across Europe after we leave the European Union; and access to the appropriate workforce. The stakes could not be higher. The Committee does not want to damage the national interest; we want to do our job on behalf of patients, this House and the public.
We know that there are sectoral analyses of life sciences, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical services and social care. I did discuss with the Committee, in advance of our hearing yesterday, whether we wished to call for these papers, and we discussed many of the issues that have been raised in the House today. The Committee was unanimous in giving me the authority formally to request those papers from the Secretary of  State, and I did so. Therefore, although there has been much comment this afternoon about there being a discourtesy in not raising this with the Committee, the Committee has considered it and would like the papers, on behalf of our patients, in order to allow us to do our job better.
I believe in transparency. I understand the concerns that have been raised and so would be prepared to see the documents in a private setting, if it is believed that that is the right way forward. But I and my Committee believe that we can do a better job on behalf of this House if we have access to the information. I therefore call on the Secretary of State to release it to us.

Bambos Charalambous: The 58 impact assessments that we know have been carried out on the instructions of the Government cover almost every imaginable area that will be affected by Brexit. Withdrawal from the European Union is arguably the most important decision that Parliament will take in over 40 years. It is only right and proper that parliamentarians should have the right to know what the impact will be on the different areas covered by the impact assessments.
Let me pick just a few areas covered by the impact assessments. On aviation, if I book a flight to Spain for 31 March 2019, will my flight be able to take off and land as it would now? What will happen to automatic flying rights if transitional arrangements are not agreed? On legal services, will lawyers be able to practise in other European countries that currently recognise their professional qualifications, or will they have to take exams or join the professional bodies of each country they wish to practise in? On higher education, will universities lose funding as a result of being unable to get students from EU countries to come over easily to study? Will universities stop attracting top academics from other EU countries? Will we struggle to get funding and collaboration on research projects? I could ask many more questions on the other areas covered by the impact assessments that the Government are refusing to release.
The Government say that they will not disclose the impact assessments because to do so would adversely affect their negotiations with the remaining EU countries. Do they honestly believe that the EU has not carried out its own assessments of what Brexit will mean for those 58 areas?
We, as Members of Parliament, have the right to be as well informed as possible about the effects of Brexit. The decisions that we take by 29 March 2019 will have a huge impact on a generation. We have a duty to make the best decision we can for our constituents, and that means being as well informed as possible. For those reasons, we must be given the impact assessments as soon as possible. We should not be kept in the dark by the Government. We have a fundamental right to know. The impact assessments must be disclosed to the appropriate Select Committees in full.

Wera Hobhouse: The vote to leave the European Union was hailed by those who champion Brexit as “taking back control”, yet we see the power of  this House being undermined almost on a daily basis: it seems that the Government have no intention of respecting that vote. Now the Government are keeping the realities of Brexit away from the British people. This lack of transparency and erosion of democracy is an utter insult to every single person who voted in the referendum, whether they supported leave or remain. Standing up for democracy is more important than ever, and I will do precisely that.
The referendum campaign was full of fake news, and it is about time we allowed the British people to assess what they want for this country, based on the truth. That is why I will continue to call not only for the impact assessments to be released, but for a referendum on the deal. What began with democracy should not end in a Government plot shrouded in secrecy. There can be only one reason why the Secretary of State refuses to release these impact assessments: he must be hiding bad news.
The EU must be fully aware that Brexit will probably have a damaging impact on the UK. The Secretary of State is kidding himself if he thinks hiding the impact assessments will solve anything. I ask the Brexiteers of this House, as they sit in their places opposing a referendum on the deal and opposing releasing the impact assessments: “What are you hiding; what are you afraid of?” It appears to me that they are hiding the reality of Brexit, because they are afraid that the promises they sold to the public will now be revealed as fake news. I support the motion.

Paul Blomfield: I am pleased to wind up a debate on an issue that is fundamental to the way in which we approach the most important negotiations our country has faced arguably since the second world war.
I am pleased that strong voices have been raised on both sides of the House in support of our motion. We have heard some noise from the Conservative Benches seeking to defend the indefensible and say that no part of the documents should be published in any circumstances—doing so apparently in contradiction of the Conservative Front Bench.

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order, but I did give my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) prior warning. As you might have heard, Mr Speaker, there was a certain amount of confusion earlier about whether this motion is binding, and I would be grateful for your view on that.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I anticipated that this might arise at the end of the debate, and I say that motions of this kind have in the past been seen as effective or binding. I will leave it there for now, but if this matter needs to be returned to at the end of the debate, no doubt it will be.

Paul Blomfield: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is helpful.
I want to repeat what our motion seeks, so there can be no misunderstanding. We have not, and we would not, advocate publishing any information that would compromise the country’s negotiating position. We are   requesting that the 58 sectoral impact assessments—the economic assessments of how the Brexit process will affect the industries that account for 88% of our economy, the jobs of up to 30 million people, and the livelihoods of many more—be released to the Exiting the European Union Committee. It will then be for that Committee, as a cross-party body of the House, to agree a process for publication, and the Chair of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), made a powerful contribution on why that publication is so important. The issue here is that an absolute, blanket ban on publishing any information from the assessments is simply not acceptable. This is about pursuing an honest debate on the future of our country. It is, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, about grown-up politics.
Members have talked about many sectors. Let me cite another: the nuclear industry. It has not been mentioned so far, but this crucial industry employs 15,000 people. Along with several colleagues, I am serving on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill Committee. Access to the nuclear industry assessment would enable us as Members of Parliament to scrutinise better, and make more informed decisions on, the legislation. That Bill is the first of many Brexit-related Bills, and it is vital that we as Members have access to the assessments when doing our jobs for the people we represent.
Too often, the Government seem to regard the House as an inconvenient hurdle to be sidestepped. We have seen that in their refusal to vote on Opposition day motions; in their power grab on delegated powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; and in the £1 million they spent on trying to ensure that the House could not vote on triggering article 50. One of their own Members has criticised them for reducing this place to a student debating chamber. This is an opportunity for them to prove that that is not their intention. We will not have proper accountability if we are unable to assess the impact of the Government’s approach to Brexit on our economy and on the jobs and livelihoods of our constituents.

Chris Philp: In opening this debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that the Opposition were
“open to hearing from the Government if they have alternative mechanisms or procedures to allow publication in an appropriate fashion.”
If those on the Opposition Front Bench hear such an appropriate alternative in the next few minutes, will they withdraw their motion?

Paul Blomfield: I will cover that point in my remarks—[Interruption.] Okay, I will cover it now. Facing defeat, those on the Government Benches seem to have made some attempts to blur what is being asked for here. We have no intention of withdrawing the motion. Let me be clear: we are saying that the Government should release the documents, in full and unredacted, to the Exiting the European Union Committee and that we should trust our colleagues on that Committee to decide on a sensible and transparent process for publication more widely.
Let me return to the Brexit Secretary’s own words—he is not here today—at a different time. When he was  Chair of the Public Accounts Committee in December 1999, he applied a simple test on the release of information. It was
“whether it makes democracy and government work better .”
He went on to say:
“The class exemption applying to all information relating to formulation and development of Government policy, including factual information, is a ludicrous blanket exemption.”—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 774 .]
Such an exemption was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Stephen Gethins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Blomfield: I am afraid that I will not give way.
The motion has been tabled in the interests of transparency and accountability. It has drawn support from both sides of the House, and it should command the support of the Government, not simply—as the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said in his opening remarks—to pay regard to the motion but, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said, to respect it. The credibility of our democracy is at stake. If the Government do not plan to honour this motion, they should vote against it. They should choose to sit on their hands only if they intend to respect the motion in full, and I hope that they will do so.

Steven Baker: It is a pleasure to rise at the end of what has been a genuinely fascinating debate, and I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part. I particularly welcome the tone and substance of what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in his opening remarks and by the Chairman of the Select Committee the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
Members of the Government are, first and foremost, parliamentarians—[Interruption.] The Government recognise that Parliament has rights relating to the publication of documents, but Ministers also have a clear obligation not to disclose information when doing so would not be in the public interest. If the motion were to pass, we would need to reflect on those conflicting responsibilities. Whether people have talked about Hansard, prior practice, our responsibilities or the best interests of this country, when we all go back and reflect on Hansard and what has been said today, a surprising degree of consensus has emerged about our responsibilities.

Stephen Gethins: rose—

Steven Baker: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman with a majority of two.

Stephen Gethins: The Minister is very kind, and I am glad that my SNP colleagues agree with me on the electoral system. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe  (Anna Soubry) was right when she pointed out that there was a tweet stating that the Government would agree to publish the impact assessments. Is that tweet from The Sun right or wrong?

Steven Baker: We have not stated any intention to publish redacted documents, although I did note what my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said about that and, in the cool light of tomorrow, we will revisit exactly what was said in Hansard. All we have said is that we will reflect on the outcome of this debate, having regard to Parliament’s rights in relation to the documents—[Interruption.] I am grateful to Opposition Members, but I am also delighted now that I have finished my—

John Bercow: Order. Excessive gesticulation is coming from right hon. and hon. Members in sedentary positions. I think the Minister is perfectly aware of the attempted intervention from his right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, and it is inconceivable that he would be unaware of it. He is aware of it.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to Opposition Members, and I would like to say how much I have been looking forward to the moment that I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful for the Minister’s gracious response. Will he help the House to understand something? If the Government will not vote against the motion, will they commit at the Dispatch Box that they will therefore hand over the documents? If they will not hand over the documents, they must vote against the motion. What is it to be? Come on.

Steven Baker: I refer my right hon. Friend to what I said just moments ago.
Coming back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said, Hansard is of course available very quickly these days and it is the case that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras said, according to Hansard:
“As I have said, we are open to hearing from the Government if they have alternative mechanisms or procedures to allow publication in an appropriate fashion. We are not wedded to the form we have put forward.”
[Interruption.] Opposition Members say, “Disgrace,” but there can surely be no disgrace in simply reading back the Hansard record of their Front-Bench spokesman. I find that entirely bizarre.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Steven Baker: I am on page one of my remarks with less than two minutes to go, and I therefore feel that I should apologise to Members for not getting through everything that I wish to say.
Throughout this process, it has been clear that the Government have always acted in line with the remit given to them by Parliament. The Secretary of State has been consistent in stressing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the Brexit process. A widely supported referendum Bill gave us the historic vote that will take us out of the European Union. We had legislation on the triggering of article 50, which preceded the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk, setting out the terms of our departure and our ambitions for the  negotiation, including delivering a deep and special partnership with the European Union, which the Government are determined to deliver.
Turning to the matter at hand, it was Parliament’s vote last year that we should not put into the public domain things that could compromise our negotiating positions. We have heard time and again from both sides of the House that we should not do that, and good reasons have been given for it—

Nick Brown: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty’s Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.

Keir Starmer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The motion having been carried unanimously and the wording being that
“the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union”,
can you confirm whether that means this motion is effective or binding and whether that means a failure of the Government to comply with it is, in fact, a contempt of the House?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. First, as I said in response to the point of order from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) a few minutes ago, motions of this kind have traditionally been regarded as binding or effective. Consistent with that established pattern, I would expect the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household to present the Humble Address in the usual way.
I say what I do, as colleagues on both sides of the House and on both sides of any argument will recognise, on the strength of an understanding of advice received in relation to precedent grounded in “Erskine May”. When I am asked, as I think I was by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, about contempt or breach of privilege, what I would say is that, if anybody wishes to make an accusation of a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, it must be done in writing to the Speaker. If I receive such a representation in writing, I will consider it and apply my best endeavours, and take advice, in reaching a view and reporting it to the House.
I have explained the position, I think, as clearly as I am able, but of course on this sensitive matter, about which I understand passions have raged this afternoon, I will take further points of order, if there are such.

Chris Leslie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I am saving up the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to waste him at an early stage.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The whole House is grateful to you for that very clear ruling. I do not know whether you noticed, but I observed defiance from the Government in the face of the ruling you have very clearly given that the motion is binding. Other than what you have said, which is very clear, are any other procedures open to Members of this House in order that this Government agree to this binding motion and come to the Dispatch Box to say that they will accept it and that these documents will be available for publication?

John Bercow: There is no other avenue open to the hon. Gentleman, whose indefatigability and commitment are understood in all parts of the House. Moreover, it would not be right, and I am sure he would not attempt, to read into what I have said anything more than what I have said.
Traditionally, such motions have been regarded as binding or effective. Consistent with that established pattern and tradition, I would expect the Humble Address to be presented by the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household in the usual way.
However, I would add that I think it sensible for the House to wait for the Government’s response. I do not propose to leap ahead. I will wait for the Government’s response. If I receive a representation, I will reflect upon it, and then I will revert to the House. Although the hon. Gentleman generously refers to my ruling, I have given only a very limited ruling to date. What I have given is on the record, and I do not resile from it, but I would need further to reflect on the basis of the Government reaction and any written representation which I may receive. I would then revert to the House. Obviously, I would intend to do so sooner rather than later, but I must assure him that it will not be tonight.

Sarah Wollaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be helpful for you to inform the House what you feel a reasonable timeframe would be for the Government to respond?

John Bercow: I do not think I am obliged to do that, and I am not sure how much difference it would make. The issues are important but I do not think—I may be contradicted by senior procedural experts, to whose wisdom I should defer—that the matters are particularly complicated. One can take a view about this, one can consult “Erskine May” and one should reflect in a sober and considered fashion, but if the hon. Lady is asking me whether I envisage this being something that needs to be deliberated on over a period of several days, the answer is no.

Chris Leslie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you assist the House in explaining how serious it is for any person, a Member of this House or someone outside it, to be in contempt of the House? Were an individual to be found in contempt of the House, that would not be a frivolous matter—it is not something that should be just ignored. Page 191 of “Erskine May” sets out the consequences for individuals found in contempt of the House and the penal jurisdiction rights of this Parliament. I would be grateful if you explained to Ministers present that this is a very serious matter.

John Bercow: Well, it is a serious matter, but I think that the hon. Gentleman, who has a cheeky countenance, is trying to push the Chair—I make no complaint about it—further than the Chair should be pushed. The answer, put simply, is: obviously, a contempt of the House, if there were such, would be a serious matter. But the short answer to his question, which probably will not satisfy him but has the advantage of being factually true, is that it depends on the circumstances of the case, and the ultimate arbiter of the seriousness of a contempt is the House.

Chris Philp: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debate, a number of Members seemed to be in favour of publishing redacted or summary versions of these papers, but of course that was not in the motion and nor was the motion amended. Were a new motion to be put requiring the Government to publish summary or redacted versions, would that then replace the motion just passed?

John Bercow: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I say to him this: the House can always consider new motions if new motions are tabled in an orderly way on a specific day and the House debates them and chooses to vote upon them. He is fast becoming interested parliamentary procedure, and I respect that. He may think it useful to him to reflect on the wise words of a distinguished representative of his own party, well known to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I refer of course to the late Lord Whitelaw, who was known to observe on one occasion, “On the whole, I think it better to cross bridges only when I come to them.”

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, “Erskine May” says on page 133:
“Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion for a return.”
That is the basis of the motion we have debated today. Can you just underline how important it is that we police that power? It is the power by which Select Committees are able to ask for any papers from anybody. It is the power by which Select Committees or the House are able to require other people to appear as witnesses. If we do not police this power, we end up completely disenfranchising this Parliament; we make ourselves utterly impotent. “Erskine May” also makes it absolutely clear that things that include contempts are
“actions which…obstruct or impede”—
the Commons—
“in the performance of its functions, or are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands”.

John Bercow: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is very important that the House polices the enforcement of its own powers. That, I think, is an observation so clear as really to brook no contradiction. The power to which Members have referred is a power that has of course been deployed by both sides of the House today: as the Order Paper testifies, the power was deployed on another matter by the Government; in this case, the Opposition have sought to deploy that power and a motion to that effect has just been passed.
On the question of the importance of the House guarding and overseeing the operation of its own powers,  the hon. Gentleman is correct: it is very important that the House does so. I say that without prejudice to a ruling on privilege or contempt in any particular case.

Seema Malhotra: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I seek your clarification on the timing of taking forward the requirements in the motion that has just been passed. I ask in the light of the fact that the list of sectors that was published was published four months after it was promised. Bearing in mind the urgency of the situation and there being only 17 months till Brexit day, can you clarify, Mr Speaker, whether it could be interpreted as contempt if there was such an extended delay as to make the information far less useful?

John Bercow: Were that proposition put to me as part of a representation by anybody alleging a contempt, I would consider that matter most carefully. I would certainly go so far as to say that it would be a most material consideration. I understand the House’s desire for clarity on this matter, one way or the other. The question of time, in both the context of the decision taken by the House tonight and the wider context of public policy, is an important question, and yes, it does form part of the equation that the Chair would have to address.

Chris Matheson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and following on from that raised by the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Leader of the House said in the House last week that when the House passes Opposition motions unanimously, there will be a 12-week gap before Ministers have to respond. Can you confirm, Sir, that because the motion just passed was a substantive motion, the option to kick the can down the road for another three months does not apply and the Government should have to come to the House with a response forthwith?

John Bercow: The Leader of the House said what she did in response to representations that were made by Members on both sides of the House in the specific context of earlier Opposition day debates, the motions for which were not binding. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but the Leader of the House, in a perfectly procedurally legitimate fashion, about which people can have different political opinions, offered to the House an indication of the intended Government handling of situations of the kind that occurred in recent weeks. Today’s debate was on a different type of motion, and therefore I would go so far as to say that I think it wrong to conflate tonight’s motion, with the instruction that it contains, with the Leader of the House’s response to a different set of circumstances a week or so ago. The situations are different and the response offered then should not necessarily be thought to apply to the situation now.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I quite enjoy voting in this place, but it was our determination not to do so. As I was listening to the debate—you were not in your Chair at the time, but a deputy of yours was—I thought the Government responded to this point and said that they would not choose to ignore this binding motion. Some of these points of order seem to be asking whether or not this House of Commons is in fact a court of law, which it is not. Any Government,  in choosing not to vote against a motion, therefore accedes to the idea that it is bound by the process and will respond in due course. Given that basis and the earlier response, I must say, Mr Speaker, that I think your earlier pronouncement was an end to the matter, as far as I can see, because it is quite clear that the Government have to respond.

John Bercow: Well, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government do have to respond. He is quite right that I was not in the Chair, though of course the Chair is seamless—there was a distinguished occupant of the Chair at the time—and I have received advice on what took place when I was not in the Chair. I think, from an earlier point of order, there was some exchange about what constituted, and what did not constitute, ignoring a motion. Suffice it to say that enough has been said tonight. Points of order have been raised. I think that I have given a clear indication of what the general practice has been and what I would do if I were approached in writing, and it is right and proper, as the right hon. Gentleman implies, that we leave it there for tonight.

Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

John Bercow: But who can refuse the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)? Of course I will hear his point of order.

Dennis Skinner: I know that Mr Speaker likes to reply to points of order, so I will just throw him one. He and I have been here a long time, so, like me, does he feel that the Government are dying on their feet?

John Bercow: It is not for me to make any such assertion. I have done my bit in allowing the hon. Gentleman to indulge his appetite and I should leave it there. I honestly think that I have said enough for tonight. Members know that what I have said so far is clear, at least in terms of the intended sequence of events. I thank the hon. Gentleman and note that he made his point with a smile.

St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust: Leasehold

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Chi Onwurah: I wish to start by declaring an interest: the landlord of my current constituency home in Newcastle, funded by the taxpayer, is potentially affected by the grotesque situation that I am about to outline.
I have called this debate on the Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust to expose a situation that combines all the worst parts of Dickensian legal tragedies, Kafkaesque bureaucracy and Catch-22 conundrums with charitable oppression thrown in. My constituents, who have worked their whole lives and invested in property, as they have been encouraged to do, are now facing their greatest asset becoming their greatest liability. Why? It is because of an obscure loophole in an obscure 1960s law, the failure of the Charity Commission to give clear advice on the good citizen role of charities and the complexity and inadequacy of the leasehold system.
I do not know the total number of my constituents in this grotesque situation, but five of them have made the brave decision to come forward and speak publicly. Howard Philips and Phyll Buchanan purchased their leasehold house on the open market in 1998. At the time, no caveats were raised by the conveyancing solicitors or by the solicitors that handled their re-mortgage in 2003. They are now in their late 70s and feel that the time has come to move on. As they say:
“The house is not suitable for our old age. The cost of maintaining these Victorian Grade II listed houses is substantial and will be a burden for the remaining years on the lease. We cannot easily manage the six flights of stairs or afford to maintain the property.”
But they cannot downsize because they cannot sell their property. Their lease has 70 years remaining and no mortgage company will advance a loan until the lease is extended. They cannot extend their lease because the charity who owns the freehold, the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, refuses to do so.
The trust was formed for the benefit of the freemen of Newcastle upon Tyne and their wives and children, and is now a considerable property owner in Newcastle. It owns the freehold of the St Thomas area of Newcastle as well as numerous properties in this and other areas of the city. There is also an intermediate lessee and managing agent—Home Group, a housing association. In refusing to extend the leasehold, the trust is causing misery for leaseholders and forcing many into financial distress. For example, Michael Armstrong says:
“We are a low income family with three children and had planned to pay off our mortgage by selling the house and downsizing once our children had grown up and left the family home…Due to the fact that we cannot extend our leasehold, or buy the freehold…we are basically trapped in a very worrying and insecure situation and face the real possibility of losing our family home.”
Sasa Savic tells me:
“When I arrived in the United Kingdom as a refugee having lost everything during the war in the former Yugoslavia, I would have never imagined that I would be facing yet another battle to save my home.”
Since purchasing the property, Mr Savic has married and has two children. The property has only one and a half bedrooms, so the family cannot live there. He has to let it out, but that does not pay the mortgage.  In effect, he is working to subsidise someone else living in it. What would happen, he asks himself, if he fell seriously ill? He says:
“That question has haunted me many times in sleepless nights. I usually do any repairs…on the property by myself, but this is getting harder and more difficult as my physical health is preventing me from doing as much as I once could.”
When Mr Savic purchased the property, he was not made aware of any leasehold restrictions that could occur in future years and, indeed, was offered the freehold to purchase by the trust in 2005. Unfortunately, he was not financially able to do so at that time.
Denise Cook, who bought a house in the St Thomas area for her elderly mother to live in, says:
“My mum spent thousands on this property...and to find now we can’t extend or buy the lease has been extremely upsetting for us. We now find ourselves having to still pay the mortgage and associated costs for the next 60 years, we are now 60 my husband and myself and our own mortgage is coming to an end. We have no idea what the future will hold and it is of great concern we pass this debt on to our family.”
I could go on, as many more constituents are affected, but I hope that the Minister now comprehends the worry and misery this situation is causing.
Let me explain as best I can the complex combination of circumstances that have caused this situation. We all know that the leasehold system has fallen into disrepute and that is why the Government have recently conducted a consultation that received more than 6,000 responses. I welcome this and hope that the Government will soon bring forward legislation on the matter. But the specific legal issues surrounding the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust relate to an amendment of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The amendment—in section 172 of the Housing Act 1985—states that if a charity owns a freehold, it is not obliged either to sell or extend the lease of houses on its land. So my constituents cannot extend their lease and they cannot buy the freehold. In Mr Philips’s words,
“we are devastated to find that our house is unsalable and our nest-egg is worthless because the charity that owns the freehold is refusing to extend our lease.”
Under this Government social housing tenants have a right to buy after only two years, but my constituents are not even allowed to extend their leasehold. The Minister has said that we need to help more people to achieve their dream of home ownership, so how can it be acceptable that my constituents stand to lose their homes because of this legal anomaly? As Mr Philips says:
“Every day we have to face this nightmare and it is taking a toll on our health.”
Their situation, however, is additionally Kafkaesque because the exemption applies only to houses. To quote Mr Philips again:
“Our neighbours who own maisonettes and are in a similar situation to ourselves have a legal right to extend their leases and even buy their freeholds from the charity, but the owners of houses…have no such rights.”
Will the Minister attempt to justify a situation where house owners are discriminated against when compared to flat owners with regards to leasehold law? It is 100 years since the Russian revolution, but this legal conundrum would not be out of place in Tsarist Russia.  It is not a situation that should endure in an accountable democracy worthy of the name and certainly not under a Government who claim to champion a property-owning democracy.
You may argue, Mr Speaker, that just because the charity does not have to extend the leaseholds that does not mean that they should not or they cannot. Well, Mr Speaker, you would be right and wrong. We have heard that in the past the trust did offer to sell freeholds, but more recently it has changed its position. My constituents have tried to be flexible. Mr Savic says:
“I offered to sell them the property at 25% below what I paid for it. I am desperate to be free of the problem and I thought that their aim must be to use the property for their charitable purposes, but despite spending over £6,000.00 on both of sets of lawyers and surveyors all I got as a response through my lawyer is ‘no’, without even a letter of explanation why.”
As a consequence, the leaseholders have become mistrustful and suspicious of the trust and its motives, yet they have no recourse to the law.
As Mr Philips says:
“Litigation is not an option against a charity, especially one with assets of £44million.”
The Trust did respond to my enquiries. The St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust said it is “sympathetic to the residents” and acknowledges that this is a
“horrible position to be in.”
But it claims that it
“cannot change it as things presently stand.”
This is because it has received legal advice informing it that it is under no obligation to sell or extend the lease, and fears repercussions from the Charity Commission if it does so. It pointed out to me that it has
“a duty to existing and future beneficiaries and to preserve the assets of the charity.”
In other words it would like to sell or to extend the lease, but feels that it cannot contravene advice that has been given to it as the Charity Commission would “take a dim view” of that.

Ian Mearns: Is my hon. Friend aware of whether the beneficiaries, or potential beneficiaries, of the trust are particularly needy or destitute?

Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his intervention. I would not like to pass judgment on the beneficiaries of the trust, but they are freemen of the city of Newcastle, and their children, wives, widows and associates. I therefore do not think they can be considered to be the most needy people in Newcastle. I also do not believe that these assets would meaningfully enrich the most needy in Newcastle.
When contacted, the Charity Commission said:
“Charities are independent organisations and their trustees are legally responsible for all aspects of their management and administration and compliance with charity law. It is important to emphasise that although”
the Charity Commission’s
“functions include encouraging and facilitating the better administration of charities, and taking remedial action to tackle misconduct or mismanagement, the law prohibits the Commission from acting directly in the administration of a charity.”
Basically, the Commission claims this issue is nothing to do with it, even though it does advise charities to take legal advice. It does not, however, advise them to be   good neighbours or good citizens. My constituents are therefore left with no recourse to justice, while the charity and the Charity Commission pass the blame between themselves.
I am therefore calling on the Minister to put an end to this situation. Will he first commit to closing this loophole as part of his proposals for leasehold reform? The Labour party has pledged a full review of leasehold, so I hope he can commit to freeing my constituents from their current grotesque impasse as part of his proposals.
Will the Minister also join me in imploring the Charity Commission to make it clear that while charities must act in the interests of their beneficiaries, that should not be at the cost of making life a misery for others? Charities must be good citizens of the communities they are part of and on whose generosity they depend. That is certainly not the case here. Will the Minister also urge the Mary Magdalene charity to be charitable in its actions as well as its words?
As a good socialist, I find it ironic that I am advocating for property rights that this Conservative Government are denying. Some might argue that the houses should never have been sold to their tenants, given the complexities of the charitable leasehold system and the need for social housing in Newcastle and elsewhere, and some might think they had a point.
Housing remains one of the top three issues in my constituency, and we are all aware that house building is at 164,000 homes per year, which is far below the required level. Government proposals to build an average of 15 homes per local authority per year are not going to make much of a dent in the 7,000 waiting list we have in Newcastle.
However, these houses were sold and bought, and what faces us now is an issue of social justice. The life’s work of these people is tied up in their property, and control of it is being withheld from them by impersonal bureaucratic forces beyond their control. As Mr Philips says:
“We are being held hostage by an obscure law originally drafted for a different purpose. Time is rapidly running out for us. We feel as if we are sinking in the bottom of a deep well and that nobody can hear our cries for help.”
I can hear those cries. Those who are here today have heard them too. I very much hope that the Minister is listening.

Alok Sharma: I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for the timely manner in which this issue has been raised. I do empathise, as I am sure we all do, with the experience of her constituents, as she has related it. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government want to see fairness in the housing market, and that absolutely extends to the leasehold sector. She alluded to the fact that the Government have clearly signalled their intention to strengthen leaseholders’ protections against unscrupulous abuses by freeholders, landlords and managing agents.
With regard to the specifics of the case the hon. Lady has raised, I know she corresponded several times with my predecessors. Her constituents will be incredibly grateful to her for continuing to highlight this issue of  great importance for them, and to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for attending the debate as the hon. Lady’s constituency neighbour.
I will return to the specifics of the case that the hon. Lady has raised, but first I would like to use this opportunity to set out the Government’s position on tackling leasehold abuses and clarify how the current legislation is applied to charitable organisations.

Chi Onwurah: I recognise the advantage of the Minister setting that out, but I hope that before he concludes his remarks he will specifically say what he will do for my constituents, for whom I called this debate.

Alok Sharma: I always try to respond to the issues that are raised in a debate, and I hope I will do so in this case too.
Many leaseholders have concerns about fairness and transparency within the leasehold sector. Our housing White Paper, and the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, have helped to move leasehold issues up the political agenda. The White Paper identified pressing areas for reform. We have talked about galvanising the house building market overall, but specifically in terms of leasehold. In our recent consultation, “Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market”, we consulted on whether new-build houses should be sold as leasehold and on the issue of onerous ground rents.
The consultation, as the hon. Lady pointed out, has closed. It clearly struck a chord with consumers and leaseholders. As she said, we have received over 6,000 responses, many of them extremely detailed. My officials are currently analysing those responses. I would like, before the end of the year, to announce the Government’s response to the consultation and propose reforms to be taken forward.
Let me now turn to the hon. Lady’s direct concerns about charitable organisations such as the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust. I understand that, as she set out, a small number of individuals have in the past acquired leases of houses on the St Thomas estate and now wish either to extend the lease or acquire the freehold. The freehold is owned by the Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, and the head lessee is Home Housing Association. Both organisations have charitable status. Unfortunately, as she outlined, the leaseholders have not been able to enfranchise—that is, purchase the freehold interest—or, indeed, extend their leases. The frustrations and anxieties that this has caused are clearly evident in the stories that she relayed—particularly, as she pointed out, for families who wish to sell and relocate. The remaining terms on a lease may well mean that a prospective purchaser will find it very difficult to secure a mortgage.
So, specifically, what I am going to do? I have asked my officials to be in direct contact with the trust to see what help can be provided to leaseholders with regard to their desire to exercise their right to buy in terms of the freehold. We will cover what flexibilities there may be for the trust to apply existing legislation to help to resolve some of the issues raised by the hon. Lady, especially where the trust and the leaseholders are both willing and agree to progress either lease extensions or the purchase of the house freeholds.
Returning to the wider recent consultation, we will look at the responses and also consider issues on the disposal of charitable leasehold homes. This will need to show fairness to the needs both of the freeholder and the leaseholder, and also strike a balance with the needs of charities to remain on a sustainable footing to continue their good work. It may be the case that the hon. Lady’s constituents were not fully informed about their rights and responsibilities when they acquired their leases, especially the whole issue of enfranchisement exemptions attached to these particular charitable leasehold properties. That leads me to another general area of concern about the transparency, or lack of it, in the way some leasehold property is marketed—in particular, whether there is clarity over the terms of lease agreements at pre-purchase, and whether sales teams are working in the best interests of prospective leasehold purchasers.
I will, as part of our wider work on leasehold reform, consider whether changes to legislation are required to improve transparency and fairness for leaseholders who want to enfranchise, where their freeholder is a charity and both parties agree that a lease extension or enfranchisement is mutually beneficial. I also want to ensure that the future marketing of leasehold homes, whether for private or charitable provision, is clearly promoted and advertised by charitable organisations to their beneficiaries. I hope that my comments have provided some comfort to the hon. Lady and her affected constituents. My Department will absolutely continue to liaise with her.

Ian Mearns: When he reviews this case, will the Minister accept that the charitable association concerned works on behalf of mainly wealthy beneficiaries, so the question of real social justice and injustice is heightened?

Alok Sharma: I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the beneficiaries of the charity. What I would say—I think this will be of interest to the hon. Lady—is that one of my officials has already spoken to a trustee, who has outlined that they may well be willing to sell the property, extend the lease or carry out the enfranchisement. Lawyers in the Department are looking to see what flexibilities are available.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for his comments and the tenor, which I appreciate, of his response to my debate. Will he confirm that he will work with the Charity Commission to ensure that, in this regard, charities set out to be good citizens and good neighbours, and that the brand of charities is not open to criticism?

Alok Sharma: I will, of course, consider what the hon. Lady has suggested. In terms of providing a positive outcome for her individual constituents, perhaps the most appropriate thing to do is to have that conversation with the trust directly. As I have said, the Department will continue to liaise with her on this case, and I hope that we will reach a conclusion that is satisfactory for her and her constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.